Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Approve a translation' without revealing side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with two short phrases. 'Approve a translation' is front-loaded and clear. The extra note about 'PRO+ plan' adds relevant context without redundancy. However, it may be under-specified for the tool's complexity, which is captured in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, and the likelihood that approving a translation has side effects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't mention prerequisites beyond the plan, what happens to the translation, or the expected response. Sibling tools indicate a complex translation workflow, so the description should provide more context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema defines no properties, and schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, and the schema's additionalProperties:true suggests parameters could be accepted but none are documented. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description's silence on how to specify which translation to approve prevents a higher score; it is not worse than 3 because no explicit parameter details are expected.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action 'Approve a translation,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools through the unique 'approve' verb, but it lacks any additional scope or context, such as whether it targets pending translations or what the approval entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_translation_mode, upload_translation, or delete_translation. The 'PRO+ plan' note implies a plan requirement but does not address when or why to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 implies a mutating operation but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or what 'create a workspace' entails beyond the repo source. The agent is left guessing about consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, a single sentence is grossly insufficient. The description omits return value, success/failure behavior, post-conditions, and required context. It fails to provide an agent with enough information to confidently invoke and interpret the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema lists zero parameters, yet the description mentions a GitHub repo as an essential input. There is no specification of how to pass the repo (e.g., property name, format). The permissive additionalProperties does not compensate for this missing semantic mapping.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('workspace'), and a source ('GitHub repo'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_workspace and list_workspaces. It leaves no doubt about the tool's core function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusion scenarios. The description simply states the action without contextualizing when it is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that deletion is permanent, irreversible, or has side effects on related data. The only extra detail is the PRO+ plan restriction, which is not a behavioral trait but a billing constraint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: one short sentence plus a plan requirement. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. However, it is so terse that it lacks useful structure beyond the basic action, precluding a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter schema, the description should provide substantial context. It does not mention return values, reversibility, internationalization implications, or how to identify the translation. The sibling tools show a rich translation workflow, but this description fails to address its role effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties allowed, so there are zero defined parameters. The description does not clarify how to specify which translation to delete (e.g., by ID), leaving ambiguity. While baseline for zero params is 4, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a translation'), with a specific verb+resource structure. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_translation, upload_translation, and approve_translation, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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, what prerequisites exist (other than PRO+ plan), or how it fits into a translation workflow. The description mentions the plan requirement but does not explain context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only mentions the PRO+ plan requirement. It does not disclose output format, potential errors, or any side effects (e.g., whether it returns a hierarchical list or requires prior context).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, using only two short sentences to convey the core purpose and a plan constraint. Every word earns its place, but it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary detail, preventing a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the target doc page is determined, what the breadcrumbs look like, or any behavioral context. The tool appears simple, but the missing page-identification detail makes it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema is empty, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline for 0 params is 4. However, the description does not clarify how the tool knows which doc page to operate on (e.g., whether it uses implicit context), leaving a gap that the schema cannot fill.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets breadcrumbs for a doc page, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings because no other tool mentions breadcrumbs, but the phrase 'a doc page' is vague since no parameters exist to specify which page.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or how to identify the target doc page. The 'PRO+ plan' note is a constraint but not usage guidance, and there are no exclusions or alternatives listed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description notes the PRO+ plan requirement, which is a behavioral constraint. However, with no annotations, it doesn't clarify read-only behavior, error handling, or what the canonical reference looks like. The verb 'get' implies a safe operation but this is not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, with the plan note appended. No extraneous information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what it returns and when to use it. It only says 'canonical reference' without defining the format or context, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure. It also doesn't differentiate from similar doc lookup tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema defines zero parameters, so the description has no responsibility to explain parameter semantics. Baseline 4 applies as no parameters need documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (get), the resource (canonical reference for a doc symbol), and the plan restriction (PRO+). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_definition and doc_hover by the specific 'canonical reference' concept.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 doc_definition or doc_resolve_link. The only contextual clue is the PRO+ plan mention, which is a restriction, not usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the plan requirement and the action itself, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return value is, or what happens if the symbol is not found or if the plan 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loading the core purpose and adding a critical plan constraint. No redundancy or wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the empty schema and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not clarify how to specify the symbol, what a 'definition' entails, or what the response looks like. For a simple tool this may be sufficient, but the ambiguity around input makes it incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty, so the baseline is 4. However, the description implies a 'doc symbol' input but gives no parameter name or format. This ambiguity reduces the usefulness for an agent attempting to construct a valid invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action (go-to-definition) on a specific resource (doc symbol), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_hover or doc_search_symbols. The phrase 'PRO+ plan' adds a clear constraint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context about prerequisites (beyond plan) or scenarios (e.g., 'use after finding a symbol'). No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Regex search over doc content' and does not disclose whether it is read-only, what it returns, scope, limitations, or any side effects. This is severely under-specified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action, but it is under-specified. The 'PRO+ plan' addition is not helpful for usage. It is concise but at the cost of completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that appears to require parameters and returns results, this description is almost useless. No output schema, no annotations, and no parameter info. It fails to provide the minimal context needed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero defined properties but allows additionalProperties, meaning parameters are open-ended. The description does not mention any required inputs (e.g., regex pattern, target document), leaving the agent without necessary invocation details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs regex search over doc content, giving a specific verb and resource. It does not differentiate from siblings like search_docs or doc_search_text, but the regex aspect provides some distinctiveness.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'PRO+ plan' mention hints at availability but gives no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the PRO+ plan requirement, but does not state that the operation is read-only, what the hover info looks like, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the plan restriction. It is appropriately sized for the minimal content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what hover info is returned, but it does not. It also does not define 'doc symbol' or provide context on how to use the tool, making it incomplete for an agent to understand its full behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter detail since there are none to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says the tool provides 'hover info for a doc symbol', which identifies a resource but the phrase 'hover info' is vague and lacks a clear verb. It is somewhat distinct from sibling tools by name, but the description does not specify what the hover info contains or how it is generated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. The only additional note is 'PRO+ plan', which indicates a plan restriction but does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate over alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the 'PRO+ plan' prerequisite but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only status. The verb 'list' implies a read operation, but this is implicit rather than stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: 'List all doc pages. PRO+ plan.' Every word is meaningful and the core action is front-loaded. No unnecessary information or repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of a zero-parameter list tool, the description provides the essential action, but it lacks context on what constitutes a 'doc page', whether it is scoped to a workspace, and what the output looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more context to make the tool fully usable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none exist. This is appropriate given no parameter semantics to clarify.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List all doc pages' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool lists all doc pages. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like search_docs or write_docs, but the scope 'all' provides some differentiation. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling comparison.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_docs or doc_outline. The only additional context is 'PRO+ plan', which is a constraint, not a usage recommendation. There is no mention of when not to use it or what scenarios favor this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, required plan access beyond the 'PRO+ plan' note, or the shape of the response. The 'PRO+ plan' is a licensing constraint, not behavioral. Crucial behavioral details are absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that states the core purpose in seven words, plus a plan requirement. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is too minimal for a tool that operates on a 'doc graph.' It does not explain how the target page is specified (especially with an empty parameter schema), what 'neighboring' means (direct vs. indirect adjacency), or what data is returned. Given no output schema and no parameter guidance, the tool cannot be invoked correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema declares zero properties, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information, but with no documented parameters that is acceptable. However, the schema's additionalProperties=true means arbitrary properties could be accepted, which the description does not clarify. Still, the schema coverage is effectively complete for defined parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get neighboring pages in the doc graph.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_doc_graph and doc_list_pages by focusing on adjacency relationships. The purpose is immediately understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing neighbor pages in the doc graph, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_doc_graph or doc_list_pages. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a plan requirement (PRO+) but doesn't describe side effects, return format, error behavior if the plan isn't met, or any other behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, efficiently communicating the core action and a key constraint. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is incomplete for confident tool invocation. It does not specify how to select the doc page, what the outline structure looks like, or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the empty schema and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential selection or execution context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero defined parameters, which would normally yield a baseline of 4. However, the schema has additionalProperties: true, and the description doesn't explain how the target doc page is identified, leaving a critical ambiguity. This reduces the score to 3 because the description should have compensated for the missing parameter context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'outline/structure of a doc page,' which is fairly clear and distinct from many sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar tools like get_doc_graph, leaving some ambiguity about what 'structure' encompasses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when 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 only mentions 'PRO+ plan' as a prerequisite, but that is a requirement rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions, alternatives, or contextual triggers are discussed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It merely states the action but does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, what happens if the link is invalid, or what the output structure looks like. The only extra detail is the plan requirement, which is not behavioral.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose in 10 words. 'PRO+ plan' is a necessary constraint. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and meaningful parameter schema, the description is the sole source of context. It lacks details on input format, return value, error handling, and distinction from related tools, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is vacuous. The description mentions a 'doc link' but does not specify how to pass it, especially given that the schema allows arbitrary additional properties (additionalProperties: true). This ambiguity is not compensated by the description, though the baseline for 0 params is 4, so a slightly lower score reflects the missing input guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: resolving a doc link to its GitHub URL. The verb 'Resolve' is specific and the resource and outcome are unambiguous. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_search_links_to or doc_canonical_ref, which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 relative to alternatives. The mention of 'PRO+ plan' indicates a requirement, but not usage context. Without exclusions or comparisons to siblings, the description offers no help in choosing this tool over similar ones.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It only states the basic action ('search') and the plan requirement. It does not mention return format, read-only nature, errors for non-PRO+ users, or any other side effects. The 'PRO+ plan' is a small hint but insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: 'Search doc sections by anchor. PRO+ plan.' Both sentences earn their place — one for function, one for restriction. No fluff, but it is so short that it omits essential details, balancing conciseness against completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite being part of a large sibling tool family and having no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what an anchor is, what response to expect, or when to choose this over alternatives. For a search tool, this is notably incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no documented parameters (0 params), and the description mentions 'by anchor' but does not specify how the anchor is passed. Since the schema allows additionalProperties, there may be hidden parameters, but the description doesn't clarify. With 0 params the baseline is 4, but the anchor concept implies an unspecified parameter, so a 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Search doc sections by anchor.' This is a specific verb+resource combination, and 'by anchor' distinguishes it from sibling search tools like doc_search_text or doc_search_symbols. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'anchor' means, which slightly reduces clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned. The only additional note, 'PRO+ plan,' indicates a licensing constraint but doesn't help with decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the plan restriction and fails to describe return format, input requirements, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool lacking annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key restriction (PRO+ plan). Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the empty schema, missing output schema, and lack of annotations, the description is materially incomplete. It fails to specify the required input parameter, return value, or edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, so no parameters are defined. The description references 'a given doc/page' but does not explain how to specify it, leaving the expected input ambiguous. Since there are no schema parameters, the description should clarify the identifier but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Find links originating from a given doc/page' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doc_search_links_to (which finds incoming links) by the direction of links.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as doc_search_links_to or doc_search_unresolved. The only additional context is 'PRO+ plan', which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the PRO+ plan restriction and the read-like action of finding links, but does not disclose read-only behavior, return format, pagination, or potential errors such as exceeding plan limits. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that may have side effects or require special permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at two short sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. However, it is under-specified, missing input details and output expectations, which limits its usefulness despite its brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description is still incomplete. It lacks information about how to specify the doc/page (as the schema is empty), what the returned links look like, and whether there are limits or ordering. The output schema is absent, so the description should have explained more, but it does not. The sibling tools with similar names suggest richer possibilities that are not addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters but allows additionalProperties, so there are no parameters to describe. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description mentions 'a given doc/page', implying an input despite the empty schema, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify how the target is passed, but the schema itself is transparent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool finds links pointing to a given doc/page, using the verb 'find' and a specific scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool doc_search_links_from, which finds links from a page. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or specify how the target doc/page is provided.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only contextual hint is 'PRO+ plan', which is a plan requirement, not usage guidance. It does not mention situations where this tool is preferred over doc_search_links_from or other search tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It communicates a PRO+ plan requirement, which is a valuable access constraint, and defines the search criterion. However, it does not disclose the scope (e.g., entire workspace vs. current doc), output format, or any potential side effects, leaving important behavioral details underspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and a critical access requirement. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is immediately scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential behavior and the PRO+ plan restriction. However, it lacks explicit scope (e.g., workspace-wide) and does not mention output characteristics, which would improve completeness for an agent. The absence of an output schema raises the need for some return-value indication, but the phrase 'find' implies a list of pages.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no conflicting information, and the schema's empty object with additionalProperties true is not contradicted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: finding orphaned pages with no incoming links. The verb 'find' and the specific resource type (orphaned pages) make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doc_search_links_to or doc_search_unresolved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'PRO+ plan' indicates a prerequisite but not a usage context. The agent must infer this tool is for discovering pages that have no inbound references, which is somewhat clear from the purpose, but there is no comparative or exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation, without indicating read-only status, input requirements, return format, or side effects. The 'PRO+ plan' hint suggests a permission constraint but is not elaborated, leaving significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence about the plan is a tangential note. The brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it concise yet under-specified; it is not a tautology but lacks substance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the many sibling search tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain glob syntax, what 'doc paths' includes, or the response structure. Combined with undefined parameters, the tool is not fully documented for reliable invocation in varied contexts.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero documented properties yet permits additional properties, implying the tool accepts parameters. However, neither the schema nor the description specifies what parameters to provide (e.g., the glob pattern key). The description's mention of 'glob' hints at a pattern parameter but does not name it, so the agent must guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('doc paths'), with a clear 'glob' modifier indicating pattern matching. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like doc_search_text or doc_search_symbols, which focus on content or symbols rather than paths.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for path-based glob searches but provides no exclusions or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching behavior and the PRO+ plan restriction, but does not state whether this is read-only, what a 'symbol' is, or what the response contains. This is minimal disclosure for a search operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that includes an example and a plan note, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the empty schema, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks parameter details, return format, and differentiation from other search tools, making it incomplete despite the tool's apparent simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties:true, and the description does not explain what parameters to pass (e.g., a query string). The example implies a search term but does not name the parameter or provide syntax, leaving the agent with no guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a fuzzy symbol search with a concrete example ('oaf' -> 'OAuth flow'), indicating a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling search tools like doc_search_text or doc_grep, but the term 'symbol search' provides some differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 the many sibling search tools (doc_search_text, doc_grep, doc_search_paths, etc.). The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses output details (ranked, snippets, line/col positions) and a plan restriction ('PRO+ plan'), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention pagination, or describe error behavior. This adds some value but leaves key behavioral traits unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and output details. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity tool, this is close to adequate, but the lack of an output schema increases the burden on the description. It mentions snippets and positions but does not describe the overall return structure, whether multiple matches are returned, or how to invoke it (e.g., query parameter). The 'PRO+ plan' note is a useful constraint but not enough for full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero defined parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but since there are no documented params, this is acceptable. The presence of 'additionalProperties: true' is ambiguous, but the description's silence on parameters is not penalized heavily given the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it performs 'full-text search' with 'ranked' results, and specifies output features like 'snippets and line/col positions.' This distinguishes it from siblings like doc_grep or doc_search_symbols, though it does not explicitly name the corpus being searched.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 only says 'PRO+ plan,' which indicates a prerequisite but offers no context about use cases or exclusions. Given the many sibling search tools, this is a notable gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without addressing output type, read-only nature, or any side effects. The 'PRO+ plan' note is a plan requirement, not a behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief, making it concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, with essential context missing, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no parameters, the description is still insufficient because it doesn't clarify what 'unresolved' means, what the output looks like, or how it differs from other link-related searches. The minimal information leaves the agent guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The schema is empty, and the description adds nothing about inputs, but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'unresolved links in the doc graph,' clearly stating the tool's function. It differentiates from sibling search tools by focusing on unresolved links, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of similar siblings like doc_search_orphans or doc_search_links_to. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or examples, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only mentions 'returning a raw_url' but omits side effects (though 'find' implies read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior when no match is found. This leaves significant transparency gaps, similar to the 'update_drive' example.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. It clearly states the action, object, criteria, and result, 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.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the description provides the essential return value (raw_url) and search criteria (query/filters). However, it lacks details on how to construct filters, expected parameter names, or potential limitations, making it only minimally complete for an agent to use confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero defined properties and only allows additionalProperties, so the description compensates by mentioning 'query and filters' as conceptual inputs. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, though exact parameter names/formats are not specified. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, which is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear object ('SKILL.md') and specifies the output ('raw_url'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'search_docs' or 'doc_search_text' by focusing on SKILL.md files, making its purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a SKILL.md needs to be found via query/filters, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use search_docs for regular docs') or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, earning a mid-range score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a plan requirement (PRO plan or higher), which is a minimal behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose read-only status, return format, pagination, or potential errors, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with no wasted words, and the core information appears first. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but that is addressed in other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should clearly describe what the tool returns. 'All AI chat questions' implies a list, but there is no mention of response structure, pagination, or whether it is read-only. This is a notable gap for a simple GET tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Per guidelines, 0 parameters merit a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't, so the schema is sufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'All AI chat questions' is a noun phrase with no explicit verb, essentially restating the tool name. It does not specify the action (e.g., 'retrieves', 'lists') or distinguish from sibling tools like get_ai_usage or get_ai_unanswered.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 or how it differs from alternatives. The only additional statement, 'PRO plan or higher,' is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It says the tool returns unanswered questions but does not define what qualifies as 'unanswered,' whether it's read-only, or what the response structure is. The PRO plan note adds minimal context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (8 words) and front-loaded with the key term, but it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence. It is concise but lacks grammatical structure, which contributes to ambiguity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no parameters, the description gives a basic sense of the returned data (unanswered questions) but omits details like time range, output fields, or how 'unanswered' is determined. Without an output schema, these details would be valuable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The empty schema with additionalProperties true is unusual, but the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter docs. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource (unanswered AI chat questions) but lacks an explicit verb, reading as a noun phrase rather than a clear action like 'List' or 'Retrieve.' It implicitly distinguishes from get_ai_questions, but not explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 siblings like get_ai_questions or get_negative_feedback. The only contextual note is a plan requirement, which is a restriction rather than usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the topic ('usage and limits') without revealing what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or any operational details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief, but it's a noun phrase fragment lacking a verb and doesn't stand as a complete sentence. Brevity sacrifices clarity, so this is under-specification rather than good conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter definitions, the description should provide additional context about what 'usage and limits' includes (e.g., numeric values, scoping, or formatting). It leaves too many questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it also doesn't clarify that no parameters are expected, despite additionalProperties allowing arbitrary input.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'AI/translation usage and limits' identifies a resource but lacks a verb, so it doesn't clearly state the action. It is not a tautology because it adds specificity, but it doesn't distinguish the tool from siblings like get_analytics or get_ai_questions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for selecting it over related analytics or translation tools, and no exclusions are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state that the tool is read-only, what data it returns, how it aggregates, or any limitations. It only lists metrics, which is insufficient for understanding side effects, return behavior, or operational constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but it is not a well-structured sentence; it is a comma-separated list of nouns. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity. This is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, as it fails to convey the tool's function in a complete grammatical form.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema), a brief description might suffice, but it must still clarify what the tool returns and how it fits among the many analytics-related sibling tools. The current description does not explain the scope, aggregation, or purpose, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero properties, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters to document, the description is not expected to add parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, though additionalProperties: true hints at unvalidated inputs, but that is outside the description's responsibility.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Views, visitors, top pages, referrers' is a noun phrase without a verb, so it does not clearly state what the tool does. It lists potential data fields but leaves the action ambiguous. While the tool name 'get_analytics' implies retrieval, the description itself lacks a specific verb+resource structure, making it vague and barely distinguishable from a generic content list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings like get_ai_usage, get_page_journeys, or get_top_visitors. The description provides no context for appropriate use, no exclusions, and no alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the PRO+ plan requirement and the read-only nature implied by 'Get', but it does not mention the return format or any other behavioral details. This is minimal but acceptable for a simple getter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, and the second notes the plan requirement. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the second sentence is a fragment.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a key prerequisite (PRO+ plan). It could be improved by stating what the tool returns (e.g., the prompt string), but given the low complexity, it is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides complete coverage trivially. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'AI chat system prompt', clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_chat_system_prompt, which performs the opposite operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used to retrieve the current chat system prompt, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide usage context. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses the access requirement ('PRO+ plan') and hints at format options ('toon/json'), but does not describe the return payload, size limitations, or read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence that is easy to parse. However, the typo 'tooon' and ambiguous 'format toon/json' slightly reduce clarity, though the overall length is appropriate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter, read-only graph accessor, the description provides the essential purpose and access plan. Yet it lacks details about what the graph contains (nodes/edges) or any limitations, which would be useful given no output schema. The 'Source of Truth' phrase helps, but completeness remains minimal.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, which is acceptable since there is nothing to document. The 'format toon/json' mention could imply a format parameter, but the schema confirms no parameters exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and the resource ('Source of Truth doc graph'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reindex_doc_graph (which mutates) and doc_neighbors (which returns a subset).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this returns the authoritative full graph but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like doc_outline or doc_neighbors. The 'PRO+ plan' note provides an access context but no exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 only the plan requirement but nothing about return format, read-only behavior, or how 'failed searches' are defined. This is minimal information, though not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The plan requirement is a useful addition. Brevity here is not over-specification; it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and only a fragmentary description, the agent cannot know what the tool returns or how it relates to sibling analytics tools. The plan requirement provides some context but is insufficient for a complete understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'No-result search queries' identifies the data being returned but lacks a verb like 'list' or 'get.' It is somewhat distinct from sibling analytics tools but is a noun fragment rather than a clear purpose statement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage context is 'PRO plan or higher,' which is a prerequisite, not guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_popular_searches or get_ai_unanswered. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Server capabilities' does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data it accesses, or any side effects, leaving a significant transparency gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (two words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not include any contextual or structuring information, failing to earn its place as a useful description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description still needs to explain what output to expect. 'Server capabilities' is too vague to understand what the tool returns, and the lack of an output schema makes this an incomplete description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage with an empty properties object. Per the baseline for zero params, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Server capabilities' is vague and lacks a clear verb or specific resource. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_workspace or get_chat_system_prompt, leaving the agent uncertain about what information is actually retrieved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about typical use cases or scenarios where this tool would be preferred, offering no practical direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions the data type and a plan requirement. It does not specify what counts as negative feedback, whether the operation is read-only, if there are any side effects, or what the return value looks like. The PRO plan note adds minor transparency but leaves major gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at five words, with no filler. It front-loads the core subject and adds a minimal access note. It loses a point because it is a fragment rather than a complete, structured sentence, but it wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

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 under-specified. It fails to explain the return format, what constitutes negative feedback (e.g., user ratings, comments, search abandonment), or any pagination/filtering options. The PRO plan note is useful but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter meaning. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The empty schema is clear, and no parameter documentation is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the noun phrase 'Pages with negative feedback' rather than a clear verb + resource construction. The action is implied by the tool name 'get', but the description itself lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', making it less clear than examples with direct action verbs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 related analytics tools like get_analytics or get_failed_searches. The only additional context, 'PRO plan or higher,' is an access prerequisite, not usage guidance for choosing among alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what data it returns, whether any side effects occur, or what authentication or plan requirements exist beyond the 'PRO+ plan' hint. This is far from adequate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but brevity is achieved by omitting essential information. It consists of two sentence fragments that convey almost no actionable detail, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral context, this description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, output, or constraints. For a tool named get_page_journeys, one would expect at least an explanation of what a 'page journey' is and how it is represented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about the input schema. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies for 0-parameter tools. The description's lack of parameter detail is not a penalty here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'User navigation paths' is a noun phrase that merely restates the tool name without a clear verb or action (e.g., 'gets', 'returns'). It does not explain what the tool actually does with these paths, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_visitor_activity or doc_neighbors.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional context, 'PRO+ plan', indicates a plan restriction but does not help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate or what problem it solves.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits, but it only notes a plan requirement. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned (e.g., count, time range), or any side effects, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, but the first clause 'Top search queries' is vague and adds little beyond the tool name. The plan restriction is useful, but overall the text is under-specified rather than efficiently complete, so it does not fully earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter analytics tool, the description misses important context such as the time period covered, how 'top' is defined, or the expected response format. Without this, the agent cannot accurately predict the tool's output or usage, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the description does not need to explain any inputs. The plan restriction is the only additional semantic, but it's not param-related; the baseline of 4 is appropriate due to the absence of parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Top search queries' is a bare noun phrase that essentially rephrases the tool name 'get_popular_searches' without adding a verb or specifying the resource scope. It does not clearly state that this returns a list of search terms, making it tautological rather than informative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only guidance provided is 'PRO plan or higher', which is a plan restriction, not an indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_failed_searches or get_analytics. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'drill-down' without explaining metrics, time range, sorting, output format, or plan enforcement. This leaves the agent without crucial 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief and front-loaded, with no filler. It uses two fragments, which is concise but not as polished as full sentences. There is no waste, but it omits important context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify what 'top' means, what data is returned, how drill-down works, or what happens without a PRO+ plan. This is insufficient for a tool with no other documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters, and the description does not introduce any. With 0 params, the baseline is 4; the description adds no improper constraints or confusion.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Top anonymous visitors with drill-down' indicates the tool returns top anonymous visitors, but it lacks a clear verb and does not differentiate from sibling analytics tools like get_visitor_activity or get_analytics. The 'PRO+ plan' note adds a requirement but not purpose clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 say when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention any exclusions, or identify competing sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 the plan requirement but omits any information about side effects, return format, potential errors, or whether the operation is safe. This is a bare minimum that fails to inform the agent about 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the only piece of practical information (plan requirement) after the core action. While under-specified, it is not verbose or poorly structured, so it earns a high conciseness score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must fully explain what the tool does, returns, and requires. It fails on all counts: it does not say what a 'translation' refers to, how to identify it, or what the response looks like. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool meaningfully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 defined parameters, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but there are none to explain. The schema's additionalProperties: true is not addressed, though the description does not need to compensate for parameters that don't exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get a translation,' which is a clear verb+noun pair, but it is vague and does not specify which translation or what criteria determine it. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like list_pending_translations or get_info, making it close to a tautology of the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage guidance is the plan requirement ('PRO plan or higher'), which is a prerequisite, not a guideline for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 nothing about behavior such as required authentication, rate limits, data format, time ranges, or potential side effects. The 'PRO+ plan' note hints at access restrictions but does not explain operational behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two short sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and states the plan restriction efficiently. However, brevity comes at the cost of missing necessary details, but the structure itself is clean.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool likely requires a visitor identifier, but neither the schema nor the description provides it. With no output schema, no annotations, and an empty input schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. The 'PRO+ plan' hint is useful but not enough to make the tool self-explanatory.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema is empty with additionalProperties true, meaning no parameters are formally defined. The description says 'for one visitor' but does not specify how to identify that visitor (e.g., a visitor ID parameter). The agent is left without any guidance on what key to pass or if parameters are even required.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the resource: a timeline of activity for one visitor. It implies a read operation and specifies the scope (one visitor), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_top_visitors. However, it lacks a explicit verb and does not detail what kind of activity is included.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional note is 'PRO+ plan,' which is an access requirement, not a usage guideline. There is no mention of when to choose this over similar analytics tools like get_page_journeys or query_events.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'get' which implies a read, but it does not mention what is returned, how errors are handled, or what happens if both ID and owner/repo are provided. This is minimal disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter, the description states the core purpose and key identifiers, but it lacks details like return format, error behavior, and exact parameter names. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a bit more context would be needed for full confidence in invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero defined properties, so the description is the only source of parameter information. It mentions 'ID or owner/repo', providing key selector concepts but without exact parameter names or formats. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds some clarity despite ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool gets a workspace, specifies the resource (workspace), and identifies two distinct selector mechanisms (ID or owner/repo). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workspaces and get_info.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when you have a workspace ID or owner/repo identifier, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this over list_workspaces or other tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add an access restriction ('PRO plan or higher'), which is useful, but it leaves out response format, workspace/user scope, pagination behavior, and any read-only guarantee beyond the verb 'List'. These are significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The plan restriction is concise and the text contains no filler or repetition, making it highly efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is minimal but adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain return format or clarify what 'pending' means in the translation workflow (e.g., awaiting approval), and it omits workspace scope. It has clear gaps but covers the essential purpose and a key access restriction.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema already provides complete parameter coverage. With no parameters to document, the description has nothing to add, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List pending translations' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pending translations'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_translation, upload_translation, approve_translation, and delete_translation. The 'PRO plan or higher' qualifier is supplementary and does not muddy the core purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approve_translation or get_translation. The only added context is 'PRO plan or higher', which is a plan prerequisite rather than usage direction, so the description gives no exclusions or alternative tool references.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and plan restriction, omitting crucial details like whether the tool lists deliveries across all webhooks or per webhook, what the response format looks like, and whether there is pagination or rate limiting. This is a significant gap for an agent understanding the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and includes the relevant Business plan condition. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description does not explain what the return value represents or whether it scopes to a particular webhook. It is minimally viable but leaves uncertainty about the response shape and scope, especially given the lack of annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The empty input schema already says there are no parameters; the description doesn't need to add more. The 'Business plan' note is unrelated to parameters but does not hurt.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('webhook deliveries'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_webhooks. The parenthetical '(Business plan)' adds a relevant plan restriction, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing webhook deliveries and mentions a Business plan requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., list_webhooks) or provide exclusions. The guidance is 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.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists webhooks, without mentioning pagination, response format, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The lack of these details limits transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint (Business plan). There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description is thin even for this simplicity. It tells what the tool does but does not describe the return value structure, allowed usage contexts, or any additional caveats. It is minimally viable but lacks helpful context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly omits any parameter details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

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 (registered webhooks), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like list_webhook_deliveries, but the resource is sufficiently specific to be understood.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 parenthetical '(Business plan)' indicates a plan restriction, but there is no context about typical use cases or exclusions relative to other webhook-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The phrase 'All workspaces' implies a read-only listing, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, authentication requirements, or what 'plan_capabilities' actually entails. This is minimal and lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, which is concise, but it is a fragment and not a well-structured sentence. It communicates a minimal idea but sacrifices clarity and structure, making it less effective than a concise but complete sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not describe return format, pagination, or the meaning of 'plan_capabilities'. Given the many sibling tools, it should provide more context about what makes this listing unique or how it relates to other workspace tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. According to the baseline for 0 params, the score is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'All workspaces with plan_capabilities' is a noun phrase rather than a sentence with a verb, so it does not explicitly state the action. The tool name 'list_workspaces' implies listing, and the description adds the detail about plan_capabilities, but it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like get_workspace beyond the plural form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_workspace or get_info. There is no mention of appropriate contexts, comparisons, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, any side effects, or rate limits. The only extra context is the plan restriction, which does not explain behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief, consisting of two fragments. While it has no wasted words, it is under-specified. This is not conciseness but rather a failure to provide necessary information, similar to the 'process' example.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

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 an open parameter schema, the description is severely inadequate. A raw analytics query tool likely has complex filtering and output behavior, but none of that is described. The tool is not usable by an AI agent with this level of detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines zero properties but has additionalProperties: true, allowing arbitrary parameters without documentation. The description adds no parameter information, so an agent has no idea what filters or arguments to pass. This is worse than a tool with no parameters, as the open schema implies some expected inputs are omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Raw analytics events query' which identifies the action (query) and resource (raw analytics events), and the 'PRO+ plan' note adds a constraint. However, it is terse and not a complete sentence, leaving ambiguity about what 'raw analytics events' means and what the query returns. It does differentiate somewhat from siblings like get_analytics by emphasizing 'raw', but not enough to be fully clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when 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 only mentions 'PRO+ plan', which is an access requirement, not a usage directive. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Read sections from the doc graph' and 'PRO+ plan,' without explaining return format, side effects, limitations, or even explicitly confirming read-only behavior. The word 'read' implies safety, but that is not stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is remarkably concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the essential plan requirement without wasting words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite the simple interface, the description is incomplete: it does not define what 'sections' are, what the tool returns, or how it differs from the many related doc tools in the sibling list. With no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context to make the tool usable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty input schema is fully sufficient. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('read') and identifies a clear resource ('sections from the doc graph'), making the basic action clear. It is not a tautology and provides more than the name alone, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like doc_outline or doc_breadcrumbs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states the action and the plan requirement, with no scenarios, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses two behavioral constraints (monthly quota and plan level) but does not describe effects of reindexing, duration, reversibility, or response. This is minimal but not entirely opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place; no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter operation, the description covers purpose and constraints, but because there is no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out behavioral details like what the reindex actually changes or returns. Sufficient for a simple action but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter gap. The description cannot add parameter meaning; baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses the specific verb 'Reindex' with a named resource ('Source of Truth doc graph'), clearly distinguishing this mutation tool from read-only siblings like get_doc_graph. The intent is immediately understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is the action to refresh the doc graph and states access constraints ('100/mo limit', 'PRO+ plan'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it. The constraint info provides useful context, but no exclusion or explicit alternative guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether replaying creates a new delivery attempt, whether it is destructive or idempotent, what inputs are required, or what the outcome will be. The description provides no behavioral traits beyond the verb itself.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information about inputs and behavior, making the brevity a liability rather than a strength.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This tool logically requires identifying a specific webhook delivery, but no parameters or context are provided. With no output schema and minimal description, an agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke this tool or what to expect. The description is critically incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero defined parameters and additionalProperties true, leaving the agent with no clue what input to provide (e.g., a delivery ID). The description adds no parameter guidance. Although 0 params normally earns a baseline of 4, the open schema creates ambiguity that the description should clarify but does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Replay a webhook delivery' uses a specific verb 'replay' and a clear resource 'webhook delivery', distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_webhook_deliveries' and 'test_webhook'. The purpose is immediately understandable even without additional context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only added context is 'Business plan', which is a plan restriction, not a usage guideline. The implied use case (retrying a failed delivery) is not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool performs search, but does not mention read-only status, output format, pagination, scope, or any side effects, which is insufficient for understanding behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence without redundancy, which is efficient. However, it is so brief that it omits critical operational details, bordering on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a search tool with numerous specialized siblings, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about query parameters, result format, and scope. With no output schema or annotations, the description is far from adequate for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties: true, offering no parameter documentation. The description does not mention expected parameters such as query text or filters, so the agent has no idea how to structure a search request.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Full-text/semantic search over doc content' with a clear verb (search) and resource (docs). However, it does not differentiate this general search from sibling tools like doc_search_text or doc_grep, so it lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specialized search siblings. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but it only mentions the PRO+ plan requirement. It does not state whether the operation is a mutation, its side effects, idempotency, or what 'configuring hooks' actually entails, leaving the agent without critical behavioral information.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with two short sentences. The plan note provides useful context and earns its place. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, though it does not ramble or waste words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what hooks are, how to configure them, what the request looks like, or what the response will be. The complexity is low, but the information provided is too sparse for the agent to use the tool correctly without prior knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the schema already has no parameters to describe. The additionalProperties flag is not addressed, but given the zero-parameter count, the baseline holds.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Configure' with the resource 'AI chat hooks', clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like set_chat_system_prompt and test_chat_hook, though 'hooks' is somewhat ambiguous and could be more explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar alternatives such as update_ai_settings or test_chat_hook. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned beyond the plan requirement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'PRO+ plan' as a constraint, but does not explain effects such as overwriting behavior, required permissions, or return values. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and plan requirement. Every word earns its place, though it is under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of schema definitions, annotations, and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to invoke the tool, what parameters to provide, or what the outcome will be. This is inadequate for a setter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties true, providing no parameter definitions. The description does not mention any expected parameters (e.g., the prompt text), so it fails to add meaning beyond the schema. Despite zero explicit parameters, the tool implicitly requires input, and the description offers no guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'set' and the resource 'AI chat system prompt', distinguishing it from sibling get_chat_system_prompt. It is specific and unambiguous about the tool's function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 or how it differs from alternatives. It only states the action, with no mention of contexts, preconditions, or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It implies a write operation but does not disclose side effects, persistence, revert options, or what 'mode' actually changes. The plan requirement is mentioned, but little else.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (5 words), which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's purpose and inputs. It does not earn its place because it omits critical information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

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 an empty input schema, the description should provide substantial context. It only states the action and a plan tier, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties allowed, yet the description does not explain what properties the tool accepts (e.g., a mode value). With 0 params, the description should compensate by specifying expected inputs; it does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool 'Set translation mode' - a clear verb+resource pair. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_translation or upload_translation, though the exact meaning of 'mode' is not elaborated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only usage hint is 'PRO+ plan', indicating a prerequisite but providing no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_chat_system_prompt or update_ui_settings. No context or exclusion criteria are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Test an AI chat hook' and the plan requirement, without explaining whether the hook is actually invoked, what side effects occur, or what the response/result looks like.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Test an AI chat hook' and no filler. The 'PRO+ plan' note is a concise, relevant constraint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a test tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description is too thin. It lacks context about what a test does, what result to expect, and how this differs from test_webhook, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero parameters and trivially 100% description coverage, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The schema includes additionalProperties: true, but with no defined parameters, the description does not need to add more.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Test an AI chat hook' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's action. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar siblings like test_webhook or describe what 'test' entails, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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, prerequisites, or expected conditions. The only additional note is 'PRO+ plan', which is a plan restriction, not a usage guideline.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and plan requirement, without explaining effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what a test delivery entails.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description. Even though it's a simple action, important context like prerequisites (existing webhook?), return value, and side effects are missing. Business plan note is helpful but insufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('test webhook delivery'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like replay_webhook_delivery or list_webhook_deliveries. The Business plan note adds a scope constraint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 such as replay_webhook_delivery. The Business plan restriction is present but no explicit context or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a removal/mutation operation but does not state whether the action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects deliveries, or any other side effects. This falls short of full transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It is not verbose, yet the brevity sacrifices necessary context, making it only minimally adequate.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no schema details, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description provides almost no context about behavior, return values, prerequisites, or effects. The Business plan note is the only extra context, which is insufficient for a webhook management operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters and the description does not explain how to identify the webhook to unregister. Given that the schema allows additional properties, the agent is left without any guidance on expected inputs, so the description fails to compensate for the empty schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Unregister a webhook') with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling webhook tools like list_webhooks and test_webhook. However, it lacks any additional detail about the exact scope or effect of unregistering, so it is not quite a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 list_webhooks or test_webhook. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' without mentioning side effects, whether existing markup is replaced or merged, or any potential destructive outcomes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the plan requirement, earning every word.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and an empty input schema, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, behavior, and effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent unprepared for a tool that likely requires specific inputs and has side effects.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty with additionalProperties:true, so there are no formal parameters documented. The description does not explain what keys or values the tool expects, such as how to specify FAQPage, HowTo, or speakable markup content. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to construct a valid call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (update) and the resources (FAQPage, HowTo, speakable markup). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like update_seo or update_geo, though the specific markup types make it reasonably distinct.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a prerequisite (PRO plan or higher), which is a form of usage constraint, and implies it is for structured data markup updates. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It only states the action and plan restrictions, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether changes are reversible, or any required authentication beyond the plan. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is concise and to the point, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a mutation tool with an empty schema and no output schema. The description is extremely minimal, lacking any information about payload structure, return values, prerequisites beyond plan level, or operational effects. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no properties and allows additionalProperties, so the agent receives no structural guidance. The description adds zero parameter information—no hints about what fields (e.g., provider name, API key, model) should be provided. This fails to compensate for the schema's openness.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update AI provider settings' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (AI provider settings), and it is distinct from sibling tools like update_ui_settings and update_branding. The plan restriction adds context but doesn't fully specify what 'AI provider settings' encompasses.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides eligibility context ('PRO plan or higher; BYO key/model is Business-only'), which helps the agent assess when the tool can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to use this tool over others, leaving some implicit inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the update action without mentioning potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing branding), permission requirements, or reversibility.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with six words, containing no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is extremely minimal for a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It lacks details on how to invoke the update, expected value formats, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to navigate the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines zero parameters but allows arbitrary additional properties, giving no structural guidance. The description adds value by enumerating likely update targets (colors, fonts, logo, theme), offering a starting point for crafting input. With no explicit parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description provides a modest semantic boost.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates branding elements with a specific verb ('Update') and lists concrete targets: colors, fonts, logo, and theme. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like update_ui_settings, which could overlap in scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_ui_settings or update_navigation. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the description alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the plan requirement. It does not mention side effects, reversibility, DNS validation, or any operational behavior, leaving the agent blind to what happens on invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (six words) and free of fluff, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It earns points for brevity but loses some because the lack of detail harms clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a mutation operation with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must be more complete but falls short. It provides only a plan-level prerequisite, not enough for an agent to understand the tool's effects, return values, or prerequisites beyond the Business plan.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero defined properties and allows additional properties, but the description adds no parameter details. Since there are 0 params, baseline is 4, though the arbitrary additionalProperties are left unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Custom domain setup' identifies the resource (custom domain) and implies a configuration action, but the verb is ambiguous ('setup' vs. 'update' from the tool name). It distinguishes from siblings only by resource, not by specific action or scope, so it's vague but not a tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like update_branding or update_ui_settings. The 'Business plan' mention provides a plan prerequisite but does not explain context or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does mention the plan restriction and the fields being mutated, but it omits side effects, overwriting behavior, authorization needs beyond plan, rate limits, or response format, which is insufficient for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with an active verb and specific field list. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema, empty tool schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to convey return values, potential errors, parameter structure, or any operational context, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema is empty with additionalProperties: true, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It names the updatable fields (TL;DR, dateModified, Person/Author markup), providing some semantics. However, it does not specify exact parameter names, nesting, or value formats, so it does not fully compensate for the missing schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Update') and specifies the target fields (TL;DR, dateModified, Person/Author markup), making the primary purpose understandable. However, 'geo' is ambiguous and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update_* tools like update_seo, update_aeo, or update_domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only additional context is 'PRO plan or higher', which is a plan constraint, not a usage scenario or exclusionary directive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral effects. It only states 'enable languages' without explaining what changes occur, reversibility, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and requirement. No unnecessary words or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a terse description, the tool lacks essential context: what 'enable languages' means, which languages are affected, and how this fits into the broader translation workflow. This is severely incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. However, the description doesn't clarify how languages are selected or whether any configuration is needed, leaving ambiguity about the tool's operation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the action ('Enable languages') and the resource ('for translation'), and specifies a plan requirement. It is clear and distinct enough from sibling update_* tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear prerequisite ('PRO plan or higher'), which is a usage condition. However, it doesn't explain when to prefer this tool over other translation-related tools or state exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Update'. It gives no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing links. 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word contributes to the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an open-ended parameter schema. The description provides only the purpose, leaving the agent guessing about inputs and behavior, so the coverage is inadequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema is empty with additionalProperties true. The description mentions the categories (header/social/folder) but does not specify the expected input structure or parameter names. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the action 'update' and the resource 'header/social/folder links', which distinguishes it from sibling update tools like update_branding or update_seo. The scope is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 the many other update_* tools. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when this tool is preferred over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the PRO plan requirement but does not state whether the update is destructive, how it affects existing settings, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource list, with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and the plan restriction, making it maximally concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no schema, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the expected input structure, whether the update replaces or merges with existing settings, or any consequences. Given the tool's moderate complexity (multiple SEO components), this one-sentence description is inadequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema defines zero parameters (additionalProperties: true), so the 0-params baseline of 4 applies. The description lists the content types affected but does not specify how to structure or pass them as parameters. Since additionalProperties is allowed, the description could have provided more detail, but the baseline for no defined parameters is met.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resources affected ('meta, OpenGraph, JSON-LD, sitemap'), which differentiates it from sibling update_* tools focused on branding, navigation, or AI settings. However, it lacks explicit scope (e.g., workspace context) and could be more precise about the update action, so it falls just short of 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.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The plan restriction ('PRO plan or higher') is a prerequisite, but there are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, despite many sibling tools with overlapping update functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Show/hide UI components' implies a mutation, but it does not mention whether the change is reversible, what side effects occur, whether permissions are required, or what the response might look like. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, directly stating the core action. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though it lacks any structured detail that could help usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, an open input schema, and a vague description. It fails to explain what UI components are affected, how to specify them, what the expected return is, or any prerequisites. For a tool with an open schema, this level of incompleteness is severely inadequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is open (additionalProperties: true) with zero documented parameters, so the description must compensate by explaining what parameters to pass. It only says 'Show/hide UI components,' which hints at component names and visibility toggles but provides no concrete parameter names, value formats, or examples. This leaves agents guessing about how to structure the API call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Show/hide UI components' states a specific action (show/hide) and a resource (UI components), but it is vague about which components are affected and how this relates to the broader UI settings. It does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools like update_navigation or update_branding, which also handle UI aspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context where the tool is appropriate. There is no implied usage beyond the generic statement of functionality.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether this operation mutates data, requires authentication, overwrites existing translations, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for an upload tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the verb phrase 'Upload a translation'. It is concise and to the point, with the extra 'PRO+ plan' constraint being non-redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no documented parameters, yet the description does not compensate with context about the upload process, expected inputs, or what happens after upload. It is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero documented properties, so the baseline is 4 according to the rubric. The description adds no parameter details, but since there are no formal parameters, there is little to document.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Upload a translation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_translation, approve_translation, and delete_translation, as 'upload' is unique among them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'PRO+ plan' is a plan requirement, not usage context, and there is no mention of when this tool is appropriate or when to prefer another.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: requires a read_write token and rejects read-only tokens. This is valuable, but it does not state whether edits overwrite existing content, whether the tool is destructive, or what side effects may occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded and the auth requirement as a concise second sentence. Every word earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description fails to explain what inputs the tool expects. With an empty schema and no output schema, the description must compensate by specifying how to provide doc content (e.g., document ID, content format, file path), but it only states 'Create/edit doc content' without any operational details. This makes it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero properties and additionalProperties true, so there are no parameters to document. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are needed given the open schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says 'Create/edit doc content' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this write tool from the many read-only sibling tools like get_info and read_doc_sections.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for creating or editing doc content, and its mention of read_write scope hints that it's not for read-only operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any read-only alternatives to defer to.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.