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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only DevTwin-recognized commands are ever executed (never arbitrary strings) and that each command has a timeout, which is valuable safety information. It doesn't mention side effects or output specifics, but the core behavioral constraints 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.

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

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then safety details, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with specific, actionable information and no filler.

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

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented separately. The description covers safety, usage flow, and available options, but omits any mention of the workspace parameter and doesn't clarify behavior when no checks are recognized. Given the tool's complexity and the availability of an output schema, these are minor gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'run' parameter (restrict to a subset of recognized commands) and directs the agent to dev_project_info to see valid values. However, the 'workspace' parameter is completely unaddressed; an agent might not know it represents the working directory. The explanation for 'run' is helpful but not comprehensive for both parameters.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool runs recognized project checks (tests/lint) with concrete examples (pytest, gradlew test, npm test, cargo test). It uses a specific verb 'Run' and a well-defined resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dev_detect or dev_health which have different purposes.

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

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

The description advises calling dev_project_info first to discover available commands and to use the 'run' parameter to restrict execution to a subset. This provides clear context and a specific prerequisite, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It describes output content but does not state whether the tool is read-only, scans the filesystem, requires network access, or has side effects. It also omits any performance or error implications. The behavior is not transparent.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the key concept and lists specifics efficiently. While it could be slightly more structured with an explicit verb, it is economical and easy to parse.

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

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

The tool has one undocumented parameter and no annotations. Even though an output schema exists (which may clarify return values), the description omits critical context about the workspace parameter and how ecosystems are detected. It is incomplete for an agent to call correctly without further inference.

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

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

The only parameter 'workspace' has zero schema description coverage (0%), and the description does not mention it at all. The agent has no idea what workspace does, how it affects the results, or what values are acceptable. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool reports dependency state per ecosystem, listing specific data points (package manager, lockfile, counts, local install). It is specific about content, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'list'. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dev_detect, dev_health, or dev_drift. No mention of context that would trigger this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer when to call it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds two meaningful traits: 'file-based only' (implying read-only, local operation) and 'fast' (performance). However, it lacks depth—no mention of error handling, what happens if the workspace is invalid, or whether it caches results. It provides some transparency but not comprehensive context.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It leads with the core purpose, then appends the behavioral notes. Every word contributes; nothing is redundant or unnecessary. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials: what it does, the parameter, and some behavior. However, it omits usage context—when to choose this over siblings—and lacks deeper behavioral details like edge cases or side effects. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete without referencing alternatives.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'workspace' as the location where the project lives, which clarifies the parameter's role. The default '.' is also consistent. While it doesn't detail accepted path formats, for a single optional parameter this is sufficient and adds meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'detect' and the resource 'project at workspace', and specifies the outputs: languages, ecosystems, and evidence files. It distinguishes itself from a tautology and conveys a specific capability, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like dev_project_info.

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

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Fast, file-based only' hints at scope and performance but does not state when a developer should pick this over siblings such as dev_health or dev_project_info, nor does it mention exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It uses non-mutating verbs ('compare', 'reports') which strongly imply a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything or disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations. The lack of explicit transparency is a moderate gap for a tool that could potentially access local installations.

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

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

The description is two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core comparison action and then specifies the output format. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function and result.

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

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

For a tool with a single optional parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context to call it correctly. The purpose and result are clear, and the workspace parameter is implied. It could mention edge cases (e.g., invalid workspace) or what happens when no drift is found, but the output schema likely covers the return structure, so the description is nearly complete.

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

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

The schema describes 'workspace' with a default but no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description's mention of 'project files' and 'installed locally' gives context that the workspace parameter specifies which directory to inspect, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's purpose or acceptable values. It adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's verb (compare), resource (expected vs installed project state), and outcome (reports mismatch as structured drift items). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the exact comparison of required runtime/tool versions against local installations, which is not ambiguous.

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

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

The description implies the intended use case (detecting version drift) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. With many siblings, explicit routing would be helpful, but the core purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'cross-references project type, runtimes, services, ports, and dependencies' and that it 'ranks likely root causes with evidence'. It also clarifies a behavioral trait: 'never asserting certainty beyond the evidence'. This is transparent about the tool's inductive reasoning and its limitation. The description doesn't mention any destructive actions or side effects, but the name suggests (and the description confirms) it is purely diagnostic. Given the lack of annotations, this is a good level of transparency.

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

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

The description is two sentences long, with the main purpose and inputs at the front. It packs a lot of information: the input, the cross-referencing behavior, the output (ranked root causes with evidence), and a critical limitation ('never asserting certainty beyond the evidence'). No fluff, every clause earns its place. The structure is clear: first sentence states the action, second expands on internals and output.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (diagnostic reasoning tool with multiple input parameters and an output schema), the description covers the core functionality well: it explains what the tool does, what it takes, and what it returns. The output schema exists (though not provided in the input schema here, but the signal says 'Has output schema: true'), so the description doesn't need to detail return values. The main missing piece is explicit mention of the 'workspace' parameter – it is implied by 'project type, runtimes, services' but not directly stated as an input. Other than that, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the parameters. The description mentions 'error/output text' and 'command that produced it' and 'workspace' implicitly. It doesn't explicitly name the workspace parameter, but it says 'cross-references project type, runtimes, services, ports, and dependencies' which implies the workspace is the project context. The description adds value by explaining what the parameters are used for (error_message as the primary input, command as optional context). It does not cover all parameter semantics in detail (e.g., format of workspace), but given the high-level nature, it provides enough meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: diagnose a development failure. It specifies the inputs (error/output text, optionally the command) and the output (ranks likely root causes with evidence). The verb 'diagnose' and the resource 'development failure' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on failure analysis rather than detection, health, or project info.

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

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when you have error/output text and optionally the command that produced it. It implies that the tool is for diagnosing failures, not for general health checks or detection. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context signals and sibling names (dev_check, dev_detect) suggest it's for failure analysis, and the description gives a clear condition for invocation. This is a strong usage guideline, essentially 'use this when you have error text and want root cause analysis'.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool is non-mutating (a 'check' that produces a score and issues), implying a read-only operation, but it stops short of explicitly stating side-effect-free behavior, performance implications, or what happens if the workspace doesn't exist. It also doesn't describe the structure of the 'issues and recommendations' it returns, though an output schema is present. The overall intent is clear, but some behavioral specifics are left to inference.

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

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

The description is a single, densely informative sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Full environment health check') and immediately enumerates the covered areas. Every element earns its place—no filler, no repetition. It is compact while conveying both scope and outcome, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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

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

The description provides a good high-level overview of functionality and output, and the presence of an output schema relieves it of fully explaining return values. However, it omits any guidance on the `workspace` parameter (its purpose and valid values), which is necessary for correct invocation. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be inside a project) or how to interpret the health score beyond 'issues and recommendations'. For a tool that combines many aspects, these gaps are moderate, leaving the description slightly incomplete.

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

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

There is one parameter, `workspace` (default '.'), and the schema provides zero description coverage (0%). The tool description never mentions this parameter or explains its meaning (e.g., directory path, project root). Although the name is somewhat self-explanatory and there is a sensible default, the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation. The agent is left to infer what value to pass, which is a notable gap for a parameter that affects the scope of the health check.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb ('health check') applied to the environment, lists the concrete aspects it combines (project detection, runtime versions, dependency state, services, ports, Git state), and defines the single 0-100 health_score output. It unambiguously distinguishes itself from narrower sibling tools like dev_dependencies or dev_services by being a 'Full environment health check' that aggregates many dimensions.

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

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

The description implies a comprehensive, one-stop check by explicitly enumerating what it covers, which signals when to use it (when a holistic overview is needed). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use dev_dependencies for dependency-only checks') nor call out situations where a narrower tool is preferred. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Never commits, stages, or modifies anything.' This fully discloses the tool's side-effect-free nature, which is the critical behavioral trait. The description goes beyond a simple purpose statement by reassuring the agent of safety.

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

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

The description is two concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. The first sentence states what it does, the second reinforces the read-only guarantee. No fluff or redundant details; every word adds value.

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

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

The description covers the tool's purpose, scope, and behavioral safeguards. An output schema exists, so return values are presumed documented elsewhere. The only notable gap is the undocumented 'workspace' parameter, which prevents the description from being fully complete for a drop-in usage understanding.

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

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

The schema has one parameter ('workspace') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. This leaves the agent to infer that 'workspace' refers to a path, but there is no explicit guidance, default behavior, or allowed values. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Read-only commit-readiness summary' and details the specific checks (Git status, project health, secrets). It also explicitly states what it never does, which distinguishes it from mutation tools. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling dev_* tools.

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

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

Usage context is implied by the name and description: it is for checking commit readiness, presumably before committing. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., dev_health, dev_check) or provide any exclusion criteria. It offers clear context but no explicit comparisons.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'This tool NEVER executes anything -- it only plans' — a critical guarantee that prevents an agent from expecting side effects. It also discloses the output behavior (classifying each step's blast radius). This is thorough and transparent for a planning tool with zero 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.

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key behavioral caveat. Every clause adds value: scope, typical use case, and the critical non-execution guarantee. No filler, no redundancy. It is concise and well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.

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

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

Given its simplicity (one optional param, no execution), the description is almost complete. It covers what the plan includes (steps, blast radius classification) and what it never does. The output schema exists, so return details are covered implicitly. Minor omission: it doesn't specify the format or granularity of the plan, but that is not essential for invocation. Overall, an agent can confidently call this tool correctly.

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

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

The schema has a single optional 'workspace' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not directly explain 'workspace', but the purpose 'for a repository' implies the workspace is the repository path. Since the parameter is simple, optional, and has a sensible default, the lack of explicit parameter explanation is a minor gap. This warrants a middle score.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('Produce a preparation plan'), a specific resource ('repository'), and the scope ('align runtimes, start services, install deps, run build/test'). It also explicitly disclaims execution, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dev_check or dev_detect that likely run commands. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated without needing to name siblings.

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

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

The description implies usage — 'for a (likely newly-cloned) repository' — and clarifies it is for planning, not execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools (e.g., dev_check for actual validation, dev_services for service management). The context is present but no alternatives or exclusions are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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 scope of inspection and a performance characteristic (slower), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, required permissions, or potential side effects. The word 'inspection' implies non-mutating, yet it is not stated outright.

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

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

Two sentences that are front-loaded with the purpose and a detailed list, followed by a comparative note. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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

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

An output schema exists, so return-value details are already covered. The description specifies a rich set of inspected aspects and includes a performance caveat. It does not explain the workspace parameter's role, but that is captured under parameter semantics. Overall, the description gives sufficient context for an agent to decide to call the tool and understand its high-level behavior.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'workspace' parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no contextual meaning about what value to provide (e.g., project root path) or how it affects the inspection.

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

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

States a specific verb 'inspection' with a specific resource ('project') and enumerates concrete content: ecosystems, runtimes, build tools, commands, environment variables, OS info, Git state. It also differentiates from dev_detect by noting 'broader and slower', making the purpose unmistakable.

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

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

Explicitly contrasts with dev_detect ('Broader and slower than dev_detect'), giving a comparative usage cue. It implies choosing this tool when depth is needed over speed, though it does not list explicit when-not-to-use conditions or mention any other sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs local detection, checks whether services are running/listening, and provides evidence, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it does not state that it has no side effects, does not start services, or what happens if services are missing. It is more transparent than a bare 'detect services' but still lacks explicit safety details.

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

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

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Local service detection') and packs in the three key outputs (needed services, running status, evidence). There is no filler or irrelevant information, making it highly efficient.

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

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

The output schema exists (though not detailed here), so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential scope: which services, whether running, and evidence. It omits explicit clarification of the 'workspace' parameter and any limitations, but for a detection tool with a single optional parameter, it is close to complete.

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

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

The schema has one parameter 'workspace' with a default of '.' and zero description coverage (0%). The description does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that it refers to the project directory. The name and default give some hint, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, and the schema itself provides no description.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('detection') and resource ('services'): it identifies which services (Postgres, Redis, compose-defined) the project needs, whether they are running, and provides evidence. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dev_dependencies (dependencies) or dev_health (health status).

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

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

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer from the title and sibling names that this is about service detection, but there is no explicit routing or 'use this when' statement.

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