Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• run_scriptC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's safe (e.g., read-only vs. potentially destructive), requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., modifies files, runs in background), or handles errors. This is inadequate for a tool that likely executes code.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it could benefit from more detail without losing brevity, but as-is, it's structurally sound.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity (running scripts often involves execution, output, errors) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns, how it behaves, or critical context like safety, making it insufficient for effective use by an agent.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), and the description adds no param info beyond the schema. It doesn't explain the meaning or interaction of parameters (e.g., why 'commitMessage' is required for running a script), so it doesn't compensate for the coverage gap but meets the baseline since schema does most work.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Run a script in the workspace' clearly states the action (run) and target (script), but it's vague about what 'run' entails (e.g., execution, testing, building) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'run_build' or 'install_dependencies', which could involve similar script-like operations. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., dependencies installed), when not to use it (e.g., for non-script tasks), or how it differs from siblings like 'run_build' or 'start_work', leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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

• run_buildC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), permissions needed, or execution context (e.g., runs in a shell). This leaves critical behavioral aspects unclear for an agent.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, straightforward sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity (a build operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader workflow with siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its full context.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'commitMessage' has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to explain 'currentWorkingDirectory' or clarify how parameters interact (e.g., if 'commitMessage' is used for git operations during the build). Baseline is 3 due to moderate schema coverage, but the description doesn't compensate for gaps.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Run the build script in the workspace' clearly states the action (run) and target (build script), but it's vague about what 'build script' specifically entails compared to sibling tools like 'run_script' or 'install_dependencies'. It distinguishes somewhat by focusing on 'build' but lacks specificity about the script's nature or expected outcomes.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_script', 'install_dependencies', or 'start_work'. The description implies it's for building, but it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., dependencies installed), exclusions, or contextual triggers, leaving usage ambiguous.

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

• vcs_diffC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get repository diff' without disclosing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), output format (e.g., patch, summary), error conditions, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted text, though this conciseness contributes to underspecification in other dimensions.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is underspecified for its complexity (4 parameters). The description doesn't explain what the diff output looks like, how to interpret it, or common usage patterns, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'staged' interacts with 'base' and 'head') or typical values. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Get repository diff' states a basic purpose (verb+resource) but is vague about scope and lacks differentiation from siblings like vcs_log or vcs_status. It doesn't specify what type of diff (e.g., between commits, staged vs unstaged) or what format the output takes.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose vcs_diff over vcs_log (which might show commit history) or vcs_status (which might show working directory state), nor does it provide context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

• vcs_logC
  2.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show commit log' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like output format, pagination, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., repository state). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise with 'Show commit log', a single phrase that front-loads the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, usage context, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to invoke the tool effectively. The simplicity of the tool doesn't compensate for these omissions.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter usage or context. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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

  Purpose3/5

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

  The description 'Show commit log' clearly indicates the tool displays commit history, which is a specific action. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'vcs_diff' or 'vcs_status' that also relate to version control, making it vague about its unique scope. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like reviewing history, debugging, or comparing with other VCS tools, nor does it exclude use cases. This leaves the agent without 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.

• apply_patchC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('apply a unified diff patch') but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a tool that modifies workspace files, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the essential action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity of applying patches (which can modify files and has parameters like 'dryRun' and 'reverse'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral traits, error handling, or output format, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain patch format details or interactions between parameters like 'dryRun' and 'reverse'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('apply') and resource ('unified diff patch in the workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'vcs_diff' or 'write_file', which might handle similar patch-related operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'vcs_diff' (which might generate patches) and 'write_file' (which could handle file modifications), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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

• copy_folderC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwriting existing folders), requires specific permissions, involves git commits (implied by the commitMessage parameter but not explained), or what the output looks like.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential action, making it highly efficient.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the git integration (why commitMessage is required), potential side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (name, newName, commitMessage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between name and newName or the purpose of commitMessage in the copying process.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('copy') and resource ('a folder in the workspace folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'create_folder' or 'vcs_diff' that might also involve folder operations, preventing a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_folder' for new folders or 'vcs_diff' for version control comparisons. It also lacks prerequisites such as needing an existing folder or git setup, leaving usage context unclear.

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

• create_folderC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the folder is permanent or temporary, error conditions, or what happens if a folder with the same name exists. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral nuances like idempotency or side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable invocation.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('name' and 'commitMessage') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured fields, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a folder in the workspace folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'copy_folder' or 'write_file' that might also create folder-like structures, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'copy_folder' or 'write_file', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context for selection.

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

• delete_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion but lacks critical details: whether it's irreversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., error if file doesn't exist). This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address safety concerns, error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('name' and 'commitMessage'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying deletion targets files in a workspace folder, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra value.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a file from the workspace folder'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_folder', which handles folder deletion instead of files, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence), exclusions (e.g., system files), or comparisons with siblings like 'delete_folder' or 'write_file' for overwriting, 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.

• delete_folderC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a folder but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, how it handles non-empty folders, or what happens to contained files. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for conciseness.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like deletion consequences, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters ('name' and 'commitMessage'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining folder naming conventions or commit message formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a folder from the workspace folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'copy_folder', which would require more specific language about folder deletion versus file deletion or folder copying.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_file' or 'copy_folder', nor does it mention prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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

• install_dependenciesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'install' entails—e.g., whether it runs npm install or another package manager, if it modifies files, requires network access, or has side effects like updating lockfiles. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like installation method, side effects, or error handling, nor does it explain the return values or usage context. This leaves significant gaps 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.

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 67%, with two parameters documented (legacyPeerDeps, commitMessage) and one undocumented (currentWorkingDirectory). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as explaining the workspace context or how parameters interact. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides moderate coverage without description enhancement.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Install') and target ('all dependencies in the workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'install_package', which might install a single package rather than all dependencies.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'install_package' or 'run_script'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a package.json file or being in a Node.js project, and doesn't mention exclusions 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.

• install_packageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool installs a package but doesn't explain what that entails—e.g., whether it modifies system state, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or interacts with a package manager like npm or pip. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (installing packages likely involves system changes), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (67% coverage), the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with inadequate information for safe and effective use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 67%, with two parameters ('name' and 'commitMessage') having descriptions in the schema, while 'currentWorkingDirectory' lacks one. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying the purpose of 'currentWorkingDirectory' or providing examples for 'commitMessage'. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Install') and resource ('a single package in the workspace'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'install_dependencies', which might handle multiple packages or dependencies differently.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'install_dependencies' or other package management methods. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid workspace or package manager setup, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios.

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

• read_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., file not found, permission issues), return format (e.g., string, binary), or performance characteristics. For a file operation tool, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a file operation tool. It doesn't explain what gets returned (content format, encoding), error handling, or workspace context. While concise, it leaves too many contextual questions unanswered for effective agent use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' clearly documented as 'File name inside the workspace folder'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the verb ('read') and resource ('content of a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'search_content' or 'list_dir' that might also involve file content access, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'read_file' over 'search_content' or 'list_dir', nor does it specify prerequisites like file existence or accessibility. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

• search_contentC
  2.9/5.0
  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 'ripgrep (rg)' which implies regex-based searching, but doesn't describe important behaviors like search scope (e.g., recursive vs. shallow), performance characteristics, error handling, or what happens with large result sets. The description is minimal and leaves many behavioral aspects unspecified.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently includes implementation details.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., file paths, line numbers, matches), how results are formatted, whether there are limitations on search depth or file types, or how to interpret the output. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Search file contents') and resource ('in the workspace'), and mentions the implementation method ('using ripgrep (rg)'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'search_entries' by specifying content search vs. entry search, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all alternatives.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_entries', 'list_dir', or 'read_file'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.

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

• search_entriesC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search mechanism (regex on paths) but fails to describe critical behaviors like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), performance characteristics, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity of a search operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format of results), error cases, or operational limits, which are essential for effective tool use in this context.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('pattern' and 'flags') thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'regular expression' but does not provide additional syntax, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema specifies.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Search for files and folders') and resource ('in the workspace'), with the specific mechanism 'using a regular expression'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_content', which might search within file contents rather than paths.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_dir' for browsing without filtering or 'search_content' for content-based searches. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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

• start_workC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It lists sequential actions but lacks critical behavioral details: whether operations are atomic/rollback on failure, what permissions are needed, whether it modifies existing branches, what happens if dependencies fail to install, or what output/errors to expect.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  Extremely concise single sentence listing all key actions. Front-loaded with no wasted words. Every clause earns its place by specifying a distinct step in the workflow.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits error handling, success criteria, side effects, and doesn't explain the relationship between parameters like startPoint and branch. Should provide more context for safe invocation.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 40% (only 2 of 5 params have descriptions). The description mentions 'install dependencies' which hints at installWithLegacyPeerDependencies, and 'create and push a branch' relates to branch/startPoint, but doesn't explain currentWorkingDirectory or commitMessage semantics beyond schema. Baseline 3 as schema covers some ground.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs (set, pull, create, push, install) and resources (remote URL, changes, branch, dependencies). It distinguishes from siblings like install_dependencies by including git operations, but doesn't explicitly contrast with vcs tools like vcs_status or vcs_log.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for starting work on a project, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from manually combining sibling tools like vcs_status + install_dependencies.

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

• write_fileC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('write') but doesn't clarify if this overwrites existing files, creates new ones, or appends content. It also omits critical details like error handling, file permissions, or workspace constraints, which are essential for safe tool invocation in a mutation context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a purpose, achieving optimal conciseness for this level of detail.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., overwrite behavior, error conditions), output expectations, or integration with sibling tools like git operations. Given the complexity of file writing in a workspace, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (name, content, commitMessage). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('write content') and target ('to a file in the workspace folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'apply_patch' or 'create_folder', which also modify files/folders, leaving some ambiguity about when this specific write operation is preferred.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for creating new files, overwriting existing ones, or how it differs from 'apply_patch' for modifications. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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

• vcs_statusB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe what 'status' includes (e.g., staged changes, untracked files), whether it's read-only, or any performance characteristics. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely provides detailed repository state information.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information efficiently.

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

  Completeness2/5

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

  Given the complexity of version control status operations and the lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information the status includes or the format of the response, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding of what to expect from this tool.

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

  Parameters4/5

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

  The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the action ('Get') and target ('status of the repository'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vcs_diff' or 'vcs_log' that also provide repository information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

  Usage Guidelines2/5

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

  The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'vcs_status' over 'vcs_diff' or 'vcs_log', nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage.

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

• list_dirB
  3.3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination), error conditions, or permissions required. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential complexity in file system operations.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List files and folders') and adds necessary context ('in the workspace folder or a subfolder'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  Given the tool's moderate complexity (file system listing), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter context, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral traits that would help an agent use it correctly in varied scenarios.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Folder name inside the workspace folder'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'subfolder' which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('files and folders'), specifying the scope as 'in the workspace folder or a subfolder'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_content' or 'read_file' by focusing on directory listing rather than searching or reading file contents, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description implies usage for browsing directory contents, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_content' for finding specific files or 'vcs_status' for version control status. It mentions the workspace folder context, but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.

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