Get Quality Definitions

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. The word 'list' implies read-only, but no details on pagination, filtering, or side effects are given. The tool's schema includes 11 parameters affecting behavior, yet the description ignores them. Score 2 for minimal transparency.

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

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

While the description is concise (3 words), it sacrifices necessary information. For a tool with 11 parameters and no schema descriptions, a single phrase is insufficient. True conciseness balances brevity with completeness; here it fails to earn its place.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no output schema, numerous siblings), the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain what quality definitions are, how they differ from quality profiles, or what the response contains. Score 1 for missing essential context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain the purpose or constraints of any of the 11 parameters, such as 'app', 'detail', or 'cursor'. This is a critical gap, warranting a score of 1.

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

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

The description states the verb 'list' and resource 'quality definitions', providing a basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quality_profile' or 'get_quality_profiles', which may cause confusion. A 3 is appropriate as it is not a tautology but lacks sibling distinction.

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

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

No usage guidelines are provided. The description offers no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, resulting in a score of 2.

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