iTechSmart MCP Server
OfficialServer Quality Checklist
Latest release: v2.0.3
- Disambiguation2/5
Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., multiple incident listing tools (list_recent_incidents, mission.list_incidents, itsm_list_open_incidents) and numerous health check tools (langfuse_health, mesh_health, probo_health, etc.). Aliases like compliance.audit_summary for get_compliance_status add confusion.
Naming Consistency3/5Tools use both snake_case (get_compliance_status) and dot notation (mission.list_incidents, prooflink.verify_receipt). Different prefixes (itsm_, ghl_, trmm_) are consistent within their subgroup but overall pattern is mixed.
Tool Count2/566 tools is excessive for a single server. The server attempts to cover multiple unrelated domains (ITSM, GHL, Deepgram, compliance, integrations), lacking a focused scope. Many tools are redundant or too granular.
Completeness2/5The tool set covers many read operations but lacks write operations for several domains (e.g., no update_ticket in ITSM). There are many health checks but limited action tools. The domain is poorly defined, making it hard to assess completeness.
Average 3.9/5 across 66 of 66 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds value by disclosing that the tool seals a cryptographic receipt and is governed by Arbiter policy. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur beyond sealing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded purpose. However, the third sentence about policy could be merged for better flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient: it does not mention return values, idempotency, or whether the workflow must be preconfigured. The governance context is useful but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description fails to explain the meaning or source of workflow_id and contact_id. It does not add practical guidance on how to obtain these IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers a GHL workflow for a contact, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_book_appointment or ghl_create_contact. However, the mention of 'Seals a ProofLink receipt' adds some ambiguity about whether the receipt is the primary output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions required scope but does not explain prerequisites, conditions, or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description adds context about the receipt sealing and scope requirement. However, it does not disclose mutation behavior, error conditions, or side effects beyond the receipt.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loading the core action. The additional sentences on scope and receipt are concise and add value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or field constraints. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description only says 'Update GHL contact fields', implying the 'fields' object contains updates, but no further details on structure or allowed keys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Update GHL contact fields', which is a specific verb and resource. The name itself indicates update, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_create_contact, though no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_create_contact. Only scope and policy requirements are mentioned, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the receipt sealing and scope requirement, but does not detail behavioral traits like idempotency or side effects on existing appointments.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-load the main purpose, with additional policy info. No wasted words, though the second line could be integrated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists; the description does not explain return values or confirm appointment creation. For a tool with four parameters, it lacks critical context on prerequisites and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameter's meaning or format. The agent must infer from names like contact_id and start_time, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Book a calendar appointment for a GHL contact', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghl_create_contact or ghl_send_email.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to book an appointment) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. It mentions required scope but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions triggering a ProofLink seal but does not explain the impact of closing a ticket (e.g., irreversibility, state changes, authorization requirements, or return values).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and a key side effect. Every word is meaningful with no filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, error handling, or ticket state prerequisites. It only covers the basic action and a side effect, 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Ticket ID to close' and 'Resolution description', so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool closes and resolves an ITSM ticket with a resolution note. It also mentions triggering a ProofLink seal, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like itsm_create_ticket or itsm_get_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when 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 itsm_create_ticket or itsm_list_tickets. It does not specify prerequisites or postconditions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, or limitations on data scope beyond 'resolved ITSM tickets'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple parameter and lack of output schema, the description minimally covers what the tool does. However, it omits details on the output format or aggregation method for MTTR.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter is adequately described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves MTTR statistics from resolved ITSM tickets, distinguishing it from sibling tools that get individual tickets or other specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like itsm_dashboard_summary or itsm_list_tickets. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits disclosed beyond listing. No mention of read-only nature, permissions, rate limits, or default behavior. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, very concise. Front-loaded with action and key features. Could be expanded slightly, but not excessively verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple list tool with well-documented parameters. Missing default behavior (e.g., if no status filter, does it return all tickets?) and return format. No output schema provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal context by restating optional filtering with example values, but does not clarify defaults or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists ITSM tickets with optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like itsm_get_ticket (single ticket) and itsm_create_ticket (creation).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like itsm_get_ticket or itsm_list_open_incidents. The description does not mention any prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states 'Read-only' (non-destructive) and mentions governance and cryptographic sealing, adding behavioral context. However, it omits details like rate limits, return structure, or whether results are paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and scope. Every sentence adds value (purpose, filter similarity, scope requirement, governance). No wasted words, though could potentially be combined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 fully described parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and behavior. However, it does not describe the return format (list of receipts, structure), which is a gap for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description only references 'same limit/container filters as get_receipt_chain', which reinforces but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'search recent ProofLink receipts' with a specific purpose 'for ledger-backed post-hoc reconstruction'. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_receipt_chain' by mentioning the same filters, but could be more explicit about the differences between the two tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives minimal usage guidance: it states 'Read-only audit scope' and mentions required scope, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_receipt_chain' or 'verify_receipt'. No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists steps and return values but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, idempotent, or requires special permissions. The dry_run parameter is mentioned in schema but not elaborated in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose and return value. No redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description mentions return values (sealed ticket IDs and receipt hashes) but does not explain terms like 'sealed' or 'receipt hash'. No output schema exists, so more detail would be helpful. It is adequate but leaves some ambiguity for complex automation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (one boolean parameter, dry_run, with clear description). The tool description adds no additional context about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers the full 6-step ITSM ProofLink loop, specifying the exact sequence (DETECT through CLOSE+SEAL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like itsm_create_ticket, which likely focus on a single step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this full-loop tool versus individual step tools (e.g., itsm_create_ticket, itsm_close_ticket). It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns transcript, confidence, and word-level timestamps, and seals a ProofLink receipt. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or supported audio formats.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of three sentences that efficiently convey the action, output, and a side effect. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key functionality and return values. However, it lacks information on supported audio formats, error handling, and behavior when both parameters are provided. The mention of 'ProofLink receipt' is intriguing but not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters are described in the input schema). The description adds no further detail beyond what the schema states (URL and file path). According to the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameters adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool transcribes audio using Deepgram Nova-2 from a URL or file path. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deepgram_tts (text-to-speech) through the transcription function, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where it should not be used. The context of siblings (e.g., deepgram_tts) is not leveraged for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds context about required read scope, governance by Arbiter constitutional policy, and a cryptographic receipt. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, cached, or has rate limits, and the term 'ProofLink cryptographic receipt' is left unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second adds essential prerequisites and policy context. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple no-parameter tool, the description covers the main output items and access requirements. However, it lacks details on return format, pagination (if any), and does not explain the receipt or policy implications. Without an output schema, more description of the result structure would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no parameters to document). The description does not need to add parameter details. It provides minimal but acceptable context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves Learning Arbiter cycle metrics with specific enumerated items (processed, promoted, rejected, known patterns). The verb 'Get' and resource 'Learning Arbiter cycle metrics' provide clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling get_* tools like get_learning_queue beyond the metric names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a required scope (learning:arbiter:read) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_learning_queue or other metric-related tools. No context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral info about sealing a ProofLink receipt and governance by Arbiter policy, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. The extra info on receipts and policies is relevant but could be slightly trimmed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and parameter semantics, which are crucial for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter details (e.g., format, constraints, optional vs required). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a contact in GoHighLevel CRM', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_update_contact by focusing on creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope 'ghl:contacts:write', implying prerequisites, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs. alternatives like ghl_update_contact.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: email may be held if flagged, governed by Arbiter constitutional policy, and sealed with a ProofLink cryptographic receipt. This goes beyond a simple send operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: action, scope, and governance. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameter descriptions in both schema and description, and no output schema, the agent lacks critical information to use the tool effectively. The description covers behavioral aspects but omits parameter semantics and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about any of the 5 parameters (body, subject, from_name, contact_id, from_email), leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Send email to GHL contact' and adds specific details about the Judge gate and ProofLink receipt, distinguishing it from siblings like ghl_book_appointment or ghl_create_contact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It mentions required scope 'ghl:messaging:write' and the Judge gate behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions return of MTTR and success rate but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, pagination (though schema suggests a limit), authentication needs, or response structure. Minimal transparency beyond the basic output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It could be slightly improved by structuring details about parameters or output, but it remains concise without being vague.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on time range of history, output format, or how it relates to other ITSM tools. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (limit and service with descriptions), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb 'Get' and the resource 'history of all auto-remediation actions', and mentions the key output metrics (MTTR and success rate). It distinguishes itself from siblings like itsm_get_mttr_stats by focusing on history rather than aggregated stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing remediation history but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as itsm_get_incident_timeline or itsm_dashboard_summary. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions receiving state changes but omits details like whether registration is idempotent, how authentication works, rate limits, or what happens on invalid URLs. Missing critical safety context for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it could be more complete by noting that the webhook must be accessible or that registration may require authentication. Still, it covers the core functionality well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'url' is already described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'register a webhook URL' and specifies the purpose 'to receive real-time ITSM ticket state changes (OPENED, UPDATED, RESOLVED)'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which appear to register webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions for when not to use it. It simply states what it does without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fill the gap. It adds context about authentication (scope requirement) and governance (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt), but does not disclose side effects or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two well-structured sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding necessary auth/governance context without extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, auth, and governance. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it mentions 'optional request body' but the schema already indicates body is not required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool triggers a Shuffle SOAR workflow by workflow ID with an optional body. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_trigger_workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes governance by Arbiter policy and ProofLink receipts, but fails to mention whether the tool returns output, if it is blocking, or what side effects occur (e.g., script execution results). This is a significant gap for an action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds necessary constraints. No fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after execution (e.g., result format, success indication). It does not, leaving agents uncertain about return behavior. Essential context for an action tool is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'agent ID or hostname', 'script ID (integer)'). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run'), the resource ('a saved script'), and the target ('Tactical RMM agent'), with identifiers ('agent ID and script ID'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like trmm_agents, trmm_health, and trmm_summary, which are query-oriented.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions a required scope ('integrations:trmm:invoke'), offering some usage guidance, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or when to avoid it. No explicit context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. It mentions creation, priority assignment, and return of ticket ID, but omits side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. Minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, no redundant information, no fluff. Efficiently conveys core purpose and key behaviors.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers basics but lacks depth for a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations. Missing details about confirmation, error handling, or async behavior. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minor context ('Assigns priority based on severity') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'ITSM ticket for an incident'. Includes key behavior 'Assigns priority based on severity' and output 'Returns ticket ID'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like itsm_close_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage for an incident but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites or context for choosing this over other creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool embeds a receipt (implying mutation) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. It does not explain return behavior or prerequisites, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not elaborate on parameters. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline score of 3 applies because the schema already provides adequate documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('embed'), the resource ('ProofLink SHA-256 receipt'), and the target ('existing ITSM ticket body'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like prooflink.verify_receipt and itsm_create_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for embedding a receipt into a ticket but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prooflink.verify_receipt or itsm_close_ticket. No exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, permissions required, or if it is read-only. It only states the return values, leaving behavioral traits unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no extraneous words. The purpose is front-loaded with the verb, and the return values are mentioned efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states what it does and what it returns. However, it could mention error conditions or format of hash for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although the schema covers the parameter description 100%, the description adds context by explaining that the ticket_id is for a ProofLink receipt, which clarifies the parameter's role beyond 'Ticket ID to verify'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'verify' and the resource 'ProofLink receipt embedded in an ITSM ticket', distinguishing it from sibling tools like prooflink.verify_receipt which operates on standalone receipts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prooflink.verify_receipt or verify_prooflink_receipt. The description implies its use for tickets but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative comparison.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds scope and receipt sealing details. Does not disclose potential rate limits or other behavioral traits beyond what is implied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and outputs, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should specify return format. It mentions fields (ok status, user, workflow count) but lacks detail on types or structure. Adequate but vague.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description does not need to add param info. Baseline 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool checks Shuffle SOAR health and returns specific outputs (ok status, user, workflow count). However, does not differentiate from sibling health tools like mesh_health or probo_health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions required scope and governance policy, providing context for when the tool is applicable. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Get'), lists expected output fields, and adds context about governance (Arbiter policy) and a cryptographic receipt. However, it does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or behavior under errors, which would enhance transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly defines the tool's purpose and output. The second adds necessary context (scope, policy, receipt). No fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description details the expected output (counts and site list) and includes scope and governance context. It is complete for a simple read-only tool, though it could mention if any filtering or ordering is supported.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high. The description does not add parameter information because none are needed, but it compensates by describing the output fields, which are not parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a summary of Tactical RMM agents with specific counts (total, online, offline, overdue) and a site list. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Tactical RMM agent summary' are precise, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trmm_agents' (likely listing agents) and 'trmm_health' (status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope ('integrations:trmm:read') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trmm_agents' or 'trmm_health'. It does not specify when-not-to-use or provide context for selecting this over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It adds information about required scope and governance (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose other important traits like idempotency, error behavior, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation. The added context is useful but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences (~30 words). It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential prerequisites and governance context without any filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values or common usage patterns. It is adequate for a straightforward logging tool but lacks contextual details that could help an agent handle edge cases or understand the response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mentions 'input, output, model, metadata' but does not add any additional meaning, formatting, or usage hints beyond what the schema already provides. No extra value is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'Langfuse trace', with the specific purpose 'to log an LLM interaction (input, output, model, metadata)'. This distinguishes it from its only sibling, 'langfuse_health', which is a health check tool, leaving no ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required permission scope ('integrations:observe:write'), which is a usage prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, the lack of explicit usage scenarios or exclusions limits the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description compensates by disclosing required scope (learning:arbiter:write), mentions Arbiter constitutional policy and ProofLink receipt, indicating governance and audit trail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with core action, no extraneous information. Every word contributes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, parameter, and behavioral context (scope, receipts). Adequate but could mention success indicators briefly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and already describes pattern_id as 'Pattern ID from get_learning_queue'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond requiring pattern_id, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Approve', resource 'Tier 2 learning pattern', and action 'promotion to Agent Brain'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_sie_finding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_learning_queue or other approval tools. Lacks usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects: saving to a specific folder and sealing a ProofLink receipt. It also names the voice model. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or failure behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with three concise clauses. No redundant words, efficient communication of key aspects: action, model, output location, receipt, and return value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and full parameter schema coverage, the description covers return value (mp3_url) and side effects (saving, sealing). Lacks details on error handling or constraints, but those are partly in schema (max 4000 chars). Still sufficient for basic usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what is in the schema; it repeats the default voice name already documented. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Convert text to speech'), the specific resource ('Deepgram Aura (aura-asteria-en)'), and the output (MP3 saved to mission-videos/, returns mp3_url). It is distinct from sibling tools like deepgram_transcribe (transcription) and deepgram_blog_audio.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., other TTS models or methods). The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context-dependent selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the required scope and mentions governance by Arbiter constitutional policy and ProofLink cryptographic receipt. This provides useful behavioral context, though it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes essential behavioral context in the second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool returns by listing key details. However, it could be more complete by specifying expected format for incident_id or handling of errors, and it does not help differentiate from similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage for the single parameter 'incident_id' is 100% with a description 'The incident ID'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch details' and the resource 'specific autonomous remediation incident', listing specific fields such as ProofLink receipt and NIST mappings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'get_incident_timeline' or 'get_remediation_history'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope 'incident:classify:read' as a prerequisite, providing some usage guidance. However, it does not give explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses the primary action, the side effect of sealing a ProofLink receipt, and the required scope. It does not detail whether the operation is reversible or the exact behavior of the receipt.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: primary action, receipt effect, and authorization context. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main action and important context (scope, receipt), but could be more complete by indicating what the operation returns or whether the stage move is validated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the parameters beyond their names in the schema. It fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Move' and identifies the resource 'GHL opportunity to a new pipeline stage'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_create_contact or ghl_book_appointment by focusing on pipeline stage transitions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the required OAuth scope and mentions governance by Arbiter policy, implying authorized usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like ghl_trigger_workflow or provide situations where this tool should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description lists phases but does not disclose response structure, permissions, or data volume.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single 13-word sentence, front-loaded with the main action and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple single-parameter tool, though lacking output schema details is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%; description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Ticket ID'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'Get' and specific resource 'full lifecycle timeline' with a list of phases, distinguishing it from siblings like itsm_get_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies use for obtaining the timeline but does not specify when to prefer it over alternatives like itsm_get_ticket or itsm_get_remediation_history.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description adds context about ProofLink receipt inclusion, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and special behavior. Front-loaded: verb, resource, and key differentiator.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple retrieval with one parameter and no output schema, description is fairly complete. Missing return format or error handling, but these are reasonable omissions for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 100% coverage with one parameter 'ticket_id' described. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies verb 'retrieve', resource 'single ITSM ticket', and highlights unique feature 'embedded ProofLink receipt if sealed'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like itsm_list_tickets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Only implies retrieval by ID. Does not reference alternatives among siblings. Minimal guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses required scope (integrations:rag:read), governance by Arbiter policy, and ProofLink receipt sealing, adding valuable behavioral context beyond the bare action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences conveying purpose and optional filter, plus a third line for behavioral context. Front-loaded and no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and description doesn't specify return format or example, which is significant for a query tool. Lacks information on expected output or limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description only repeats the optional filter, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Query' and the resource 'RAGflow knowledge base', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'ragflow_health'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage by describing natural-language querying and optional filtering, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses the tool is read-only, governed by Arbiter constitutional policy, and produces a ProofLink cryptographic receipt, which adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides key context: purpose, read-only behavior, alias relationship, required scope, and governance details. It is nearly complete, though it omits return format details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the required scope (though not a parameter) and the governance context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool returns 'the live compliance audit summary' for CISO/auditor review, and notes it is an alias for get_compliance_status, but does not elaborate on differences from the sibling tool, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope (compliance.audit_summary) and the read-only nature, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_compliance_status, and does not provide exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that data is computed live from a file, no authentication required on the upstream endpoint, but requires scope. It also mentions governance and cryptographic receipt. This provides good behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise, with multiple sentences providing needed detail. It could be slightly tighter, but it is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly specifies what is returned: scores, per-control evidence status, gap analysis, and source tracker file. It also covers constraints (scope, governance, authentication). This is complete for a simple retrieval tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly omits it. Baseline 3 is elevated because no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'live compliance scores for the iTechSmart platform' and lists specific frameworks. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling compliance tools like compliance.audit_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions required scope and that no auth is needed on the upstream endpoint, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the scope requirement, governance by Arbiter policy, and that every call is cryptographically sealed. It explains the output (all receipts in order, verified). However, it does not detail rate limits, error handling, or consequences of chain issues.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two short paragraphs. The first paragraph immediately states the purpose and behavior, and the second covers requirements and governance. Every sentence adds value with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what is returned (all receipts in order, verified) and mentions scope and governance. However, it lacks detail on return format/fields (no output schema) and does not address pagination or error conditions. It is fairly complete for a retrieval tool but could elaborate on the receipt structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'limit' and 'container'. It could have explained how limit interacts with chronological ordering or the meaning of container, but it's acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches and verifies the complete ProofLink receipt chain in chronological order, confirming tamper-proof status. It specifies the source (iTechSmart's production ledger) and distinguishes itself from verification-specific siblings by emphasizing comprehensive retrieval and verification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope (ledger:audit:read) and governance policy, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like prooflink.verify_chain or prooflink.verify_receipt. Usage context is implied but not clearly differentiated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool injects a synthetic test incident and returns specific items, but does not clarify whether this is non-destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. 'Synthetic test incident' weakly implies safety, but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and purpose, followed by the return values. Every word is informative with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter test tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and return values. It lacks explanation of the 'ProofLink loop' and safety implications, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'inject' and clearly identifies the resource as a synthetic test incident processed through the 'full ITSM ProofLink loop'. It also states the return values. This differentiates it from sibling tools like itsm_create_ticket (real ticket) and itsm_run_loop (generic loop).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for testing by mentioning 'synthetic test incident', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like itsm_create_ticket or itsm_run_loop. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool runs five named detectors and does not create tickets, but it provides no details about side effects (e.g., whether results are stored, if it triggers alerts, or if it requires special permissions). With no annotations provided, more transparency on behavioral traits would be beneficial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is well-structured and front-loaded with key information. Every word contributes meaning, and it avoids unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter input, no output schema, and straightforward purpose, the description is largely complete. It specifies the detectors and the no-ticket outcome. However, it could mention the output format or whether the tool blocks until completion, but this is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level detail. However, schema coverage is 100% by default, and the description appropriately clarifies the tool's behavior without needing parameter elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('all 5 incident detectors') with explicit names. It clearly states the action and the result ('return raw findings without creating tickets'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like itsm_create_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining raw detection results without ticket creation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like itsm_list_open_incidents or individual detection tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature, required scope permission, and governance with Arbiter policy and ProofLink cryptographic receipt. Lacks mention of idempotency, ordering, or pagination behavior, but provides valuable behavioral context beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three well-structured sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by alias and requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a list tool with two simple optional parameters. Mentions read-only, scope, receipt, and alias. Could improve by stating default ordering (e.g., 'most recent first') or describing output structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description does not add further meaning or usage hints for the parameters, so baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'list', resource 'recent autonomous IT incidents', and scope 'mission'. Also mentions it is an alias for list_recent_incidents, explicitly distinguishing it from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Identifies alias relationship with list_recent_incidents but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other tools like get_incident_details. No exclusions or alternatives beyond the alias.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the required read scope ('integrations:probo:read'), indicating a read-only operation, and adds governance context ('Arbiter constitutional policy' and 'ProofLink cryptographic receipt'). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences: the first front-loads the primary purpose and output fields; the second adds essential requirements and behavioral context. No superfluous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, key output fields, and governance context. It lacks details on pagination or ordering but is sufficient for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0, 100% coverage), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Probo compliance risks', specifying the returned fields ('severity level and status'). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'probo_controls' or 'probo_summary' which likely cover different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a scope requirement but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., probo_controls, probo_summary). There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools to choose for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It mentions read-only, safe usage, and governance by Arbiter policy with cryptographic receipts. Lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary content, well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, safety, scope, and governance. Lacks details on output format or potential failure modes, but given no output schema, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool verifies the ProofLink receipt chain for EU AI Act Article 12, CISO, and auditor workflows. It distinguishes itself by noting it is an alias for get_receipt_chain and safe for production API keys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context for usage: audit scope, safe for production without admin rights, requires specific scope. However, does not explicitly contrast with siblings like prooflink.verify_receipt or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It states 'Read-only' and 'without granting mutation rights', which are good. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing or invalid receipts, rate limits, or performance characteristics. Adequate for a simple verification tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second adds scope and policy context. No waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, alias, required scope, and policy. It lacks explicit mention of the return format, but that is often implied for verification tools. Nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description of receipt_id ('16 hex characters'). The description adds no further meaning beyond 'verify by ID', so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('verify'), the resource ('ProofLink receipt'), and the scope ('Read-only audit scope'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by noting it is an alias for verify_prooflink_receipt, which clarifies the relationship.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use ('Read-only audit scope') and mentions required scope and governance. It explicitly points to the alias sibling, but does not give explicit when-not or alternative use cases beyond that.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope (infrastructure:scan:read), mentions governance by Arbiter policy, and notes that every call is sealed with a ProofLink receipt. For a read-only status check, this provides adequate behavioral context beyond a simple 'get status'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then lists key metrics and requirements, with no redundant or filler sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameter-less tool, the description is reasonably complete. It enumerates the returned metrics (container health, compliance scores, etc.) and mentions governance. Without an output schema, the description compensates adequately. Could be enhanced by noting the response format or potential errors, but sufficient for most use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters (schema coverage 100% empty), so the description need not add parametric meaning. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate; no further elaboration required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool retrieves the operational status of the iTechSmart UAIO platform and lists specific metrics returned (container health, ProofLink receipts, etc.). Verb and resource are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other systems or incident details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like get_platform_briefing or mesh_health. The description only states the required scope, but does not provide context for appropriate usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the required scope ('iself:journal:read'), governance ('Arbiter constitutional policy'), and receipt sealing. It does not mention rate limits or latency but adequately describes the read-only nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loading the main action. Some extra context ('iSELF runs every 5 min') is informative but not strictly necessary. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers return contents, scope requirement, and governance. For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, this is sufficient. No output schema exists, so the itemized return fields are helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the `limit` parameter (default 20, max 100). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves the iSELF healing history and details the contents of journal entries. It distinguishes itself from sibling incident tools by focusing on iSELF-specific records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context on what the tool does and mentions required scope. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation with no side effects. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but could be improved by noting it does not modify state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with the action and key details. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description could mention what fields are returned or any limitations, but for a simple list tool it provides sufficient context. Minor gap: no mention of response format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds meaningful context about the return (open incidents sorted by severity), exceeding the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (list), target resource (currently open incidents), and sort order (by severity). It distinguishes from sibling tools like itsm_list_tickets which would list all tickets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies use when needing open incidents sorted by severity, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or contrast with alternative list tools like itsm_list_tickets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses that it's a read operation, returns specific fields, and notes governance and ProofLink sealing. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, no waste. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even without an output schema, the description lists returned fields and covers requirements, making it complete for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers both parameters (100% coverage) with clear descriptions. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent autonomous IT remediation incidents'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_incident_details' or 'itsm_list_open_incidents'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states required scope and governance, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions governance under 'Arbiter constitutional policy' and a 'ProofLink cryptographic receipt', adding behavioral context. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus a separate line for scope/policy. It is front-loaded with the purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers inputs (none) and outputs at a high level (ok status and control count) but does not specify the return format (e.g., JSON structure). Given no output schema, more detail on the response shape would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but this is sufficient given the absence of parameters. Baseline 4 applies for 0-param tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks 'Probo compliance platform health' and returns 'ok status and control count'. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling health tools like mesh_health or langfuse_health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies a required scope ('integrations:probo:read'), which provides a prerequisite for usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like other health checks or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses required scope ('infrastructure:logs:read') and governance details (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt). It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences in the first paragraph plus a second paragraph on requirements. Front-loaded with purpose; every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, permissions, and governance. Missing return format specification, but that is acceptable for a log search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema, only clarifying 'pattern' as a grep filter. It does not detail parameter constraints like format or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description explicitly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'live systemd journal logs for any iTechSmart service', clearly distinguishing it from sibling search tools like prooflink.search_receipts or ragflow_query.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides specific use cases: 'find errors, trace restarts, check last N lines of any service'. While it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context signals (sibling tool get_iself_journal) imply differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description discloses behavioral traits well: it verifies hash integrity, chain link, and schema completeness, returns tamper_detected flag, and mentions governance by Arbiter constitutional policy and ProofLink sealing. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus a return value statement) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (tamper_detected flag, individual check results, summary). It also covers requirements (scope, policy) and provides enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (receipt_id) already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no further detail about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it verifies the cryptographic integrity of a ProofLink receipt, specifying hash integrity, chain link, and schema completeness. It distinguishes the tool from similar verification tools by mentioning the iTechSmart platform and the specific checks performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions required scope (prooflink:verify:read) but does not differentiate from siblings like prooflink.verify_receipt or prooflink.verify_chain. The usage context is implied but not fully specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool saves to a directory, returns an MP3 URL and filename, and seals a ProofLink receipt. This is good transparency, though it could mention side effects like file overwriting or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences front-load the core purpose, then provide additional details (directory, return fields, receipt sealing). Each sentence adds distinct information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the main functionality and outputs. However, it lacks information on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., API keys), or expected behavior when inputs are invalid.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions for title and content. The description adds value for the content parameter by noting that markdown is stripped automatically, which is not in the schema. This improves clarity beyond the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifically states it generates an MP3 audio version of a blog post via Deepgram TTS, saves to a directory, returns specific fields, and seals a ProofLink receipt. This distinguishes it from siblings like deepgram_transcribe (audio-to-text) and deepgram_tts (generic TTS).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for converting blog content to audio but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, though the sibling context provides some differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes the multi-agent pipeline, SEMI_AUTO mode, scope requirement, Arbiter policy, and ProofLink receipt. Missing details on failure handling or latency, but still informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two paragraphs are informative but slightly verbose. Could condense agent pipeline into a list, but overall structure is clear and front-loaded with purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description explains return type (multi-agent remediation plan and receipt ID). Covers all necessary aspects for a dispatch tool with good annotations-like transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no extra parameter context beyond what schema provides, which is already descriptive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool dispatches an IT incident to a specific multi-agent GroupChat for autonomous diagnosis, listing the agent pipeline and output. Distinct from sibling tools like get_incident_details and itsm_create_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit use cases (service crashes, OOMKills, etc.) and mentions SEMI_AUTO mode, giving clear context. Lacks direct alternatives or when-not-to-use, but examples effectively guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the required scope and governance (Arbiter policy and ProofLink receipt), which are useful. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the health-check nature implies safety. Could be more detailed about side effects or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no waste. The first sentence clearly states the action and scope; the second adds access and governance. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, integrations, return type, permissions, and governance. It could specify the output structure more precisely, but it is sufficient for a simple aggregation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states that the tool performs a parallel health check across all wired integrations (Langfuse, RAGflow, Shuffle, Tactical RMM, MeshCentral, Probo compliance) and returns ok:true/false plus metadata. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like langfuse_health, mesh_health, etc., which are individual checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the required scope (integrations:status:read) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus individual health checks. While it implies a comprehensive use case, it lacks direct alternatives or exclusions, making it adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the pipeline's multi-agent chain, the return structure (final_answer + confidence), governance policy (Arbiter constitution, ProofLink receipt), and the HTTP method/endpoint. It adds significant context beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail idempotency or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is four sentences, roughly 100 words, with critical information front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose: primary action, pipeline routing, use cases, endpoint, scope, and governance. No waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value (final_answer with confidence). It also covers governance, endpoint, and scope. However, more detail on the response structure or formats would push it to 5. Still, it is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context like 'free-form prompt' and 'memory continuity' for session_id, but these are already captured in the schema. No additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool invokes a multi-agent cognitive pipeline with free-form prompts, specifying it returns a synthesized answer with confidence. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting 'open-ended reasoning' vs 'deterministic infrastructure lookup', making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description tells when to use the tool ('open-ended platform questions, decision support') and what it's good for ('needs OctoAI's reasoning'), and mentions required scope ('octoai:pipeline:invoke'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' but the positive guidance is clear enough to differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation by returning summary data, but doesn't explicitly state that it causes no side effects. A brief note like 'read-only' would improve transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists outputs. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately describes the summary data returned. It could mention that it's a dashboard view, but overall complete for selection purposes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description correctly adds no parameter information since none are needed. Baseline 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('ITSM dashboard summary'), and explicitly lists the metrics returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'itsm_list_open_incidents' or 'itsm_get_mttr_stats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for high-level overview, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when needing detailed ticket data). However, the metrics listed and context of sibling tools make it reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns status and last-scan results, which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made or mention any rate limits or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every piece of information earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned. It could optionally mention the output format, but it is complete enough for a simple list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the description adds value by specifying the exact data returned and the number of sources. According to guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'status and last-scan results for all 5 ITSM incident detection sources'. It specifies that there are exactly 5 sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like itsm_get_ticket or itsm_get_incident_timeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for checking detection source status, but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses non-obvious constraints: required scope, governance by Arbiter policy, and cryptographic receipt. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'returns status'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: action, return value, and constraints. Front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Provides sufficient context for a simple health check: output includes ok status and org name, plus security details. No output schema exists, but the description covers the key return fields. Could mention typical response format (e.g., JSON) but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so the description correctly omits param details. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as schema_coverage is 100% and no param explanation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool checks Langfuse platform health and returns status and org name. Distinguishes from sibling health checks by naming the specific platform.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a precondition (required scope) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other health check tools like probo_health or ragflow_health. Agent must infer usage from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope ('integrations:mesh:read') and mentions governance ('Arbiter constitutional policy') and auditing ('ProofLink cryptographic receipt'), adding valuable behavioral context beyond a simple 'check health'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and return data, followed by essential policy/scope context. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter health check tool, the description lists the key return fields (ok status, admin user, enrolled device count) and adds governance context. It does not specify the exact JSON output structure, but for a health check this is acceptable. It is complete enough given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description appropriately adds no parameter information, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description includes return fields, which is sufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'Check MeshCentral remote device management health' and lists the return values (ok status, admin user, enrolled device count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling health tools like trmm_health or ragflow_health by specifying the target system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking MeshCentral health but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other health checks or provide alternative recommendations. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: injects specific failure types, runs a multi-phase loop, returns a ProofLink receipt, requires a specific scope, and is governed by policies. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a focused paragraph with front-loaded main action, then process details, then constraints. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Well-structured for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return (ProofLink receipt with phases) and key constraints (scope, governance, sandbox-only). Could elaborate on receipt details but sufficient for a simulation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'attack_type' has 100% schema description coverage, including the same default and enum values repeated in the tool description. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: triggering a simulated infrastructure attack on the iTechSmart sandbox to demonstrate the UAIO autonomous loop. It specifies the action (trigger, simulate) and resource (sandbox), and uniquely distinguishes itself from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly limits usage to the sandbox ('SANDBOX ONLY — no production systems are affected'), guiding appropriate use. However, it does not mention alternatives or specific when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses background execution, effects of each mode (apply modifies files, seals receipts), permission requirements, and governance by constitutional policy. It does not detail error handling or rate limits, but covers key behaviors sufficiently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately sized and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds useful information (modes, background, permissions, receipts). Minor redundancy exists but generally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but the description compensates by mentioning sealed receipts and directing the agent to check get_platform_briefing for results. It covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke, side effects, and post-invocation steps. Given the tool's complexity (modes, background execution), it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so both parameters are documented. The description adds significant value for the 'mode' parameter by detailing the behavior of each enum value. For 'use_llm', it does not add beyond the schema, but overall the parameter intent is clear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('kick off') and the resource ('SIE scan of the iTechSmart platform'). It distinguishes between the two modes (dry-run and apply), making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. It is well-differentiated from siblings like get_sie_queue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use each mode and indicates that the scan runs in the background, recommending checking get_platform_briefing for results after ~2 minutes. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description adds context about the read-only nature (implies by scope), governance policy, and cryptographic receipt. It could mention pagination or count, but the information provided is reasonable for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states purpose and details, the second adds scope and governance. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, required scope, and governance. Nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters; the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying the output fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all Tactical RMM managed agents') and the information returned (status, OS, site, last-seen info), distinguishing it from sibling tools like trmm_health and trmm_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides the required scope ('integrations:trmm:read') and mentions governance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but the description adds behavioral context: governance by Arbiter policy and ProofLink cryptographic receipt. It does not disclose all potential traits (e.g., rate limits), but for a health check it is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus one line for scope, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no fluff or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return values, scope requirement, and governance, fully meeting the needs for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it adds no misleading information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'Tactical RMM health', and specifies returns ('ok status' and 'enrolled agent count'), distinguishing it from siblings like mesh_health and probo_health.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions required scope ('integrations:trmm:read'), providing context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('retrieve', 'inspect'), describes what is returned (severity, detector type, etc.), and adds governance details (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt). No destructive behavior is implied, and the description is thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise (two paragraphs), front-loads the purpose, and includes necessary details like scope and governance. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it is well-structured and informative without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return values (severity, detector type, fix class, file paths, remediation). It covers authentication (scope) and governance (Arbiter policy, ProofLink receipt). For a simple retrieval tool, this is comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds global context but does not elaborate beyond the schema. Following baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as retrieving the SIE security finding queue, listing pending findings with details like severity and detector type. It distinguishes from siblings such as approve_sie_finding (which approves findings) and trigger_sie_scan (which triggers scans), making its purpose specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states to use this tool to inspect security issues flagged for human approval, providing clear context. It also specifies the required scope. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the context is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required scope and mentions governance and cryptographic receipts, which provides useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only nature, rate limits, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose and output fields, and the second adds permissions and governance. Every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description lists the returned fields (hostname, OS, connectivity, group info) which is helpful given no output schema. It lacks details on pagination or error states, but for a simple list-all tool with no parameters, it is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'devices enrolled in MeshCentral', and the specific information returned (hostname, OS, connectivity, group info). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying MeshCentral device listing, which is unique among the sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the required scope ('integrations:mesh:read'), which guides the agent on prerequisites. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives, nor does it mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses governance (Arbiter policy), cryptographic receipts (ProofLink), and that it returns health status and dataset count. It implies read-only behavior (health check) without stating it explicitly, which is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and resource. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose/returns, scope requirement, governance detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it returns, required scope, and governance. It could be slightly more specific about the 'ok status' format, but for a health check it is sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and resource 'RAGflow RAG platform health', and specifies the return values (ok status and dataset count). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ragflow_query (which is for queries) and other health checks targeting different platforms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (to check RAGflow health) and mentions the required scope. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough relative to sibling health tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context: required scope, constitutional policy, and ProofLink receipt. It implies a read operation, but could further detail idempotency or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences with front-loaded key action and scope. No redundant words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description provides necessary context about item selection and governance. Could be improved by mentioning output format or pagination, but still mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description's job is minimal. It adds filtering criteria (Tier 2, score 50-85) beyond the schema, enhancing parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it retrieves patterns pending human approval from Learning Arbiter, with specific criteria (Tier 2, score 50-85). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like approve_learning_item and get_learning_metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('pending human approval') and specifies required scope, but does not explicitly advise against alternative tools or describe when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden, disclosing: real-time data, scope requirement, governance by Arbiter policy, and cryptographic proof (ProofLink receipt). No mention of destructiveness, but context implies read-only. Minor gap: no explicit statement of non-destructiveness or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact paragraphs: first lists tool output and use case, second adds scope and legal context. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, front-loaded with critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description enumerates all returned categories (service status, SIE counts, disk, etc.), satisfying completeness for a complex tool. Agent can accurately infer what data to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (empty schema, 100% coverage). The description needs no parameter info, earning the baseline score of 4 for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('platform health briefing'), enumerates the specific data returned (18 services, SIE counts, disk usage, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_sie_queue' or 'query_uaio_status' by emphasizing it's a full one-shot snapshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states when to use ('instant one-shot snapshot') and notes required scope. It does not explicitly exclude sibling tools, but the emphasis on comprehensive coverage implicitly guides usage over more specific tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the required scope, governance policy, and the cryptographic receipt sealing, adding behavioral context beyond a simple list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences effectively communicate the main purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value, with no extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers functionality (list controls with specific fields), context (SOC2/EU AI Act), prerequisites (scope), and behavioral notes (governance, receipts). It is fully sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info but also does not need to. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a clear verb-resource pair: 'List all Probo compliance controls' and specifies the returned fields (status, category, description) and context (SOC2/EU AI Act). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like probo_health and probo_risks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes prerequisites ('Requires scope: integrations:probo:read') and governance context ('governed by Arbiter constitutional policy'), guiding when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like probo_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses that every call is governed by Arbiter policy and sealed with a cryptographic receipt. This goes beyond a simple read operation and adds valuable behavioral context. It does not mention caching or real-time nature, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first sentence defines purpose and output content, second sentence covers requirements and behavior. Front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all aspects: what the summary contains (control pass/fail, risk levels, task counts), the required scope, and behavioral notes (policy, receipt). It is complete and independently intelligible.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific info (none needed) but effectively explains what the tool returns, which is the only input to the agent's decision.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 'Probo compliance aggregate summary', listing specific data categories (control pass/fail, risk high/medium/low, task open/done). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like probo_controls and probo_risks which focus on subsets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies the required OAuth scope ('integrations:probo:read') and the constitutional policy governance, providing clear prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or recommend alternative tools for specific needs, though the aggregate nature implies it for overall status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses read-only nature, scope requirement, and adds policy and cryptographic receipt details beyond annotations (none provided). No contradictions. The description fully informs about behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys all key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers purpose, read-only, scope, policy, and receipt. Does not describe return format, but for a simple health check without output schema, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so description does not need to add parameter info. Explanation is adequate given no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'return live cluster health' with specific verb-resource mapping. 'Read-only mission scope' and 'Alias for cluster_status' further clarify purpose and distinguish from other tools like mission.list_incidents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly marks as read-only and states scope requirement, but does not explicitly differentiate from other health tools (e.g., mesh_health, probo_health). Provides good context for safe invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full weight. Discloses that it modifies files on disk, seals an immutable receipt, requires scope sie:queue:write, and is governed by Arbiter constitutional policy. This is comprehensive for a mutable tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose/actions, prerequisite, behavioral warning, and governance/scope. Front-loaded with the core action, no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (modifies disk, seals receipt, governed), the description covers purpose, prerequisite, side effects, required scope, and governance. No output schema, so omitted return values are acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema covers the single parameter with a description. The description reinforces the prerequisite (use get_sie_queue) in both the main text and schema description, adding helpful context beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool approves an SIE security finding by queue index and lists specific actions (applies fixer, seals receipt, removes from queue). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sie_queue by naming it as a prerequisite.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs to get the index from get_sie_queue first, and notes the tool modifies files and seals a receipt. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context strongly implies usage for approval decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Iteksmart/mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server