arcane-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.3.0
Disambiguation4/5
Despite the large number of tools, each tool clearly targets a specific resource and action (e.g., create_container vs. create_network). Descriptions further clarify intent. A few close pairs like check_image_update vs. check_all_image_updates exist but are distinguishable by scope.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_containers, start_container, prune_images). No mixing of conventions, making the naming predictable and easy to navigate.
Tool Count2/5
With 127 tools, the set is extremely large. While the server covers a broad domain (Docker management), the sheer number overwhelms typical agent decision-making and far exceeds the recommended range.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers nearly all aspects of Docker management: containers, images, volumes, networks, Compose projects, registries, webhooks, environments, vulnerabilities, and system operations. CRUD and lifecycle management are present for each resource, with only minor limitations noted (e.g., exec fallback).
Average 2.7/5 across 127 of 127 tools scored. Lowest: 1.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 9 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool 'returns' a label, implying a read operation, but does not mention idempotence, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. This is insufficient for an agent to understand what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise but at the cost of meaningful information. It lacks structure and essential details, making it under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the classification label is, what inputs are expected, or what the tool accomplishes. The agent would have to guess how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter. The 'action' and 'classification' parameters are completely undefined in meaning or usage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.
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 states the verb 'return' and resource 'classification label', but the phrase 'for a given tool classification value' is ambiguous. It is unclear what constitutes a 'tool classification value' and how it relates to the parameters 'action' and 'classification'. The purpose is partially clear 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, nor are there any exclusions or context for selection. The description does not help an agent decide when classify_tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions a confirmation token but does not detail the token source, what happens if missing, or the destructive nature of the operation. Critical information about side effects (e.g., data loss) is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but critically under-specified; it lacks essential details. It is not sufficiently informative for its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No annotations or output schema exist. With four parameters and no parameter documentation, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits return information, error conditions, prerequisites, and side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to any of the four parameters (force, env_id, agent_token, container_id). The agent cannot infer parameter purpose or constraints from the description alone.
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 states 'Remove a container' which is a clear verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like kill_container or stop_container. The term 'remove' could be ambiguous without context, and there is no mention that it is a destructive operation that deletes the container.
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 kill_container or stop_container. It mentions a requirement for a confirmation token but does not explain how to obtain it or when it is needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it does not handle multipart uploads, but fails to explain what it does, side effects, or any behavioral traits. Lacks transparency beyond a single limitation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are concise, but the critical contradiction reduces clarity. Front-loads purpose but immediate contradiction harms structure.
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 output schema and no parameter explanations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand how to use the tool correctly. Missing key context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No description for parameters (env_id, agent_token) despite 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States 'Upload an image to the environment' but undermines itself by saying it does not handle multipart file uploads, creating confusion about what it actually does. The purpose is ambiguous.
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?
Advises against using it for multipart uploads, directing to external tools, but does not specify appropriate use cases or alternatives within the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or response format. For a tool that likely reads data, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which might seem concise but is under-specified. It fails to provide enough context to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is far too sparse to be complete. It lacks essential details about the return value, pagination, or any additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation for any parameter, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of 'env_id', 'image_id', and 'agent_token'.
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 resource (build history for an image). It is specific enough to differentiate from other get_image_* tools like get_image_attestations or get_image_vulnerabilities, but lacks details about what exactly 'build history' includes.
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 does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, 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.
Behavior1/5
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' which implies read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and fails to provide necessary information, sacrificing completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description does not explain what 'updater status' entails, its possible values, or how to interpret the response. It is incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters env_id and agent_token. The agent cannot understand their purpose or valid values from the description alone.
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 'Get the current updater status' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (updater status), distinguishing it from siblings like get_updater_history (historical data) and run_updater (mutating action). However, it lacks details on scope or context.
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. The description provides no context for choosing it over other tools like get_updater_history or check_system_upgrade.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or output details. The description provides no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It does not earn its place as it adds no information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify return values, parameter behavior, or any constraints, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (network_id, env_id, agent_token). The agent receives no guidance on parameter roles or usage.
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 specifies the verb 'inspect' and the resource 'specific network', making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling inspect tools (e.g., inspect_container, inspect_image) which have similar patterns.
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 get_network_topology or get_network_counts. There are no prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any behavioral details beyond the obvious start action. No information is given about side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error states. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words) but under-specified. While concise, it sacrifices useful information. Every word is earned, but the structure lacks any additional context that would help an agent.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the effect of optional parameters. The agent is left to guess too much.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to 'env_id', 'agent_token', or 'container_id' beyond their names. The tool description does not compensate for the lack of schema 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 'Start a stopped container' clearly states the action and the target resource. It is specific enough to differentiate from similar tools like 'stop_container' or 'restart_container', but it does not add significant depth beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 (e.g., 'start_stopped_containers', 'restart_container'). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or hints about appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new container registry.' without any mention of side effects, permissions, or post-creation behavior (e.g., whether it tests connectivity or stores credentials). This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is too minimal to be useful; conciseness should not sacrifice essential information. Structure is simple but adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand how to use the tool correctly, especially with 6 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters (2 required) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, such as what 'url', 'name', 'env_id', 'username', 'password', or 'agent_token' represent or how they are used. This is a critical gap.
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 'Create a new container registry.' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the tool's action. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_registry, list_registries, and update_registry by implying creation. However, it lacks additional context that could further clarify the type of registry (e.g., Docker registry).
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as test_registry or update_registry. No prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned. The description fails to provide any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe (read-only), what happens if the file or project doesn't exist, or any side effects. The single sentence offers no behavioral details beyond a basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is too terse and lacks essential details, making it minimally adequate. It could be expanded without losing 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 has 3 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is insufficient. It does not specify return format, error scenarios, or relationship to other 'get' tools like get_project_compose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It does not mention project_id, env_id, or agent_token at all, leaving their purpose and constraints completely unspecified.
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 states it gets the project file content for a Compose project, providing a verb and resource. However, it is ambiguous what 'project file' specifically refers to, especially given sibling tools like 'get_project_compose' which might retrieve similar data. This reduces clarity.
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 does not specify prerequisites, output format, or cases where it shouldn't be used. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether the trigger is destructive. The agent has no insight into what happens when this tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load important information, and while it is brief, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters with no descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's behavior, return value, or prerequisites, making it insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameters. It only mentions 'by token' but does not define what 'token' represents or what the 'action' parameter does. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'trigger' and the resource 'webhook', distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_webhook or delete_webhook. However, it could be more specific about what 'inbound' means.
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. The description does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior, but it only states the action. No information on side effects, permissions, error cases, or container state requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but too minimal—it sacrifices completeness. Front-loaded with the action, but does not provide value beyond the name.
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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. Missing prerequisites, return behavior, and explanation of parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation for the three parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id). The agent cannot infer their meanings without external knowledge.
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 is a tautology of the tool name, restating 'unpause container' without additional context. It does not specify the scope or distinguish from start_container or resume actions.
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 vs alternatives like start_container or resume. The description fails to inform the agent about prerequisites (e.g., container must be paused) 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, error conditions, or side effects, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very concise, the single sentence is too minimal; it lacks structure and essential details, making it an underspecification rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of backup operations, the description is incomplete—it does not explain return values, required identifiers, or workflow integration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the three parameters; with 0% schema coverage, it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a new backup of a volume,' which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_volume_backups or restore_volume_backup.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the action 'download' without detailing side effects, permissions, or what 'download' entails (e.g., file output, network request).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely brief (3 words), the description is under-specified. It lacks necessary details, making it ineffective despite being concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral details, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (env_id, backup_id, agent_token). The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.
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 'Download a volume backup' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_volume_backup' and 'delete_volume_backup'.
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 lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Get,' implying a read-only operation, but with no annotations, it carries the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or that it is safe. The behavioral context is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence) but lacks the information to be useful. It is under-specified, which harms its value rather than being efficiently minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what a 'background activity' is, what the return value contains, or how to use the parameters. The tool is not adequately defined for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 3 parameters (activity_id, env_id, agent_token) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no information about these parameters beyond what the schema structure shows. The agent cannot infer their meaning or usage.
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 'Get a specific background activity' clearly indicates the verb (Get) and the resource (specific background activity). It suggests differentiating from list_activities which retrieves all activities. However, it does not explicitly state that it retrieves a single activity by ID.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus siblings like list_activities, cancel_activity, or others. The agent is left to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The short statement adds no transparency beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly brief—one sentence—but lacks necessary detail. It is not concise; it is under-specified. Every word is used, but critical information is missing, making it insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 2 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain what counts are returned, how to interpret the result, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_container_counts'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention either parameter (env_id, agent_token) or their meaning/format. This leaves the agent guessing how to use them.
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 and resource: 'Get network counts for the given environment.' It is specific enough to understand the tool fetches count data for networks, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_topology' or 'list_networks'.
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. No prerequisites, context, or examples provided. The description merely states the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation. The description is too vague to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but at the expense of completeness. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential information about parameters and behavior, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not specify what form the counts take (e.g., a number or a map), any default behavior for env_id, or how to interpret the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters ('env_id' and 'agent_token'). The tool description does not explain what these parameters mean or how they affect the counts, leaving the agent without necessary usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get counts') and the resource ('Compose projects in the given environment'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects and get_project by indicating it returns counts, not details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 such as list_projects or get_container_counts. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. The implied read operation is not explicitly confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this conciseness sacrifices necessary information. It does not earn its place as informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema or additional context, the agent cannot determine the structure of the history data, what events are included, or how to interpret the results. The tool is under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'env_id' or 'agent_token'. The agent must infer meaning solely from names and defaults, which is insufficient.
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 'Get updater operation history' uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_updater_status' which likely gives current status. However, it could be more precise about what the history includes.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_updater_status' or 'check_image_update'. The agent receives no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the action and a requirement but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., container restarts, potential downtime), error states, or post-conditions. The confirmation step is mentioned but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (single sentence) and lacks necessary details. It front-loads the action but omits parameter explanations, behavioral notes, and usage guidance. Conciseness here sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
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 undocumented parameters, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain the confirmation_token, what happens after running, or how this differs from check_updater_status or confirm_operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters (env_id, agent_token) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage. No value added beyond the schema.
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 ('Run the updater') and its purpose ('apply pending container updates'). It distinguishes the tool as the action that initiates updates, not just checking status. However, it could be more specific about what 'pending container updates' entails.
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 mentions a requirement ('Requires confirmation via confirmation_token') but does not explain when to use this tool versus similar siblings like check_all_image_updates or confirm_operation. No context on prerequisites or alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like whether updates are partial or full, if side effects occur (e.g., authentication changes), or if specific permissions are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise at three words, it is under-specified. Conciseness should be balanced with informativeness; this description is too brief for a tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the update semantics, required fields, or expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 any of the 7 parameters (e.g., registry_id, url, name, password). It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'container registry', distinguishing it from siblings like create_registry, delete_registry, and get_registry. However, it lacks specificity about what aspects of the registry can be updated.
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 such as create_registry or test_registry. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, data destruction, permission requirements, or post-archival state. 'Archive' implies non-destructive action, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no extraneous words, but it lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is acceptable, but it sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover what happens after archiving, error conditions, or the lifecycle implications for the project.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (env_id, project_id, agent_token). No semantics are provided beyond the schema structure.
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 'archive' and the resource 'Compose project,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'unarchive_project' and 'remove_project'.
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 like 'remove_project' or 'deploy_project.' No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Cancel' but does not disclose whether the action is safe, reversible, or requires specific permissions. Critical behavioral traits like side effects or required auth are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy, but it is overly terse. It could include parameter details or usage notes without losing conciseness. It earns its place but is under-specified.
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 output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify return behavior, error conditions, or what happens after cancellation. For a tool with three parameters, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters, but it does not mention any of the three parameters (activity_id, env_id, agent_token). The tool name implies activity_id is needed, but no semantic detail is provided.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Cancel' and the resource 'running background activity', making the action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'clear_activity_history' or 'stop_container', missing a chance to clarify scope.
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 such as 'clear_activity_history' or other cancellation tools. The description implies usage when an activity is running but provides no context for appropriate conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, or has side effects. For a batch operation, potential long runtimes or safety information is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise. However, it sacrifices necessary information, landing between under-specification and efficient 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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description should provide more context such as return format, behavior, or limitations. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters with zero description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning to 'env_id' or 'agent_token'. The agent receives no guidance on parameter purpose or formatting.
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 'check' and resource 'all images in the environment' for updates. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'check_image_update', which likely checks a single image. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit distinction.
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 over alternatives like 'check_image_update' or any prerequisites. The description does not mention scenarios or contexts for use, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—one short sentence—but fails to provide necessary detail. It achieves conciseness at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is vastly incomplete. It lacks context on return values, error handling, and usage scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters (env_id, network_id, agent_token, container_id). The agent has no context for what these values mean.
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: connect a container to a network. It effectively distinguishes from the sibling tool 'disconnect_container_from_network', though it could be slightly more specific by mentioning 'existing' network.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like container running or network existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Register', which implies creation, but provides no details on prerequisites, side effects, or authentication needs. The agent cannot understand what 'register' entails operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information. It is concise in length but not in value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 required parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the parameters have no descriptions. The description does not explain the meaning or purpose of 'name', 'api_url', or 'agent_token'. The agent has no information about these required fields.
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 'Register a new remote agent environment' clearly states the action (register/create) and the resource type (remote agent environment). It distinguishes from siblings like create_container by specifying 'environment', but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like create_network.
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 such as update_environment or remove_environment. The agent gets no help deciding if this is the correct tool for the task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, omitting details like whether parent directories are created, whether overwriting occurs, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, achieving conciseness. However, it is too brief to support effective tool use, so efficiency does not compensate for lack of content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover parameter semantics, return value, prerequisites, or error conditions, making it inadequate for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. The description does not mention 'name', 'path', 'env_id', or 'agent_token'. An agent would not know how to use these parameters correctly from the description alone.
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 'Create a directory inside a volume' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (directory inside a volume). It distinguishes from siblings like create_volume (creates the volume itself) and file manipulation tools. However, it does not specify any additional scope or constraints.
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, such as upload_to_volume or browse_volume. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals the confirmation requirement but omits critical details such as irreversibility, permissions, side effects, or what happens to related data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence), which aids readability, but it sacrifices essential information like parameter semantics. While efficient, it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks critical details about how to obtain event_id, what confirmation_token is, and the tool's relationship to other tools like list_events.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any parameters. The meaning of event_id and agent_token is unspecified, even though the schema provides their types and constraints. The agent cannot infer usage without additional context.
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 a system event') and resource ('system event'), making the primary purpose evident. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'system event' or differentiate from other deletion tools, but the verb-resource pair provides adequate clarity.
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 minimal usage guidance, only mentioning the need for a confirmation token. It offers no context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cancel_activity) or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, safety, or response format. It only states 'get counts' which implies read-only but does not confirm or add further context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short at one sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail to be fully useful. It could be improved without adding much length.
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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format or how parameters influence results, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Parameters env_id and agent_token are not explained in the description. The agent has no clue what these parameters do or how they affect the counts.
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 gets container counts by status, listing examples like running, stopped, paused. This distinguishes it from list-type tools but does not explicitly differentiate from other count tools like get_image_counts.
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 such as list_containers or get_container_stats. The description only states the basic function without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get Docker system information,' which is vague. It does not confirm whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or what side effects (if any) occur. The description lacks sufficient clarity for safe agent invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness. It is well-structured but lacks necessary details, so it does not earn its place fully.
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 simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema), the description should still clarify what 'system information' includes. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to interpret results or handle parameters. The description is incomplete for operational use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter. The two parameters (env_id and agent_token) are described only by their schema defaults. The description adds zero value in clarifying their purpose or format, leaving the agent to guess.
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 retrieves Docker system information for a given environment. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Docker system information'), making the purpose straightforward. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like get_system_health or get_docker_version.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The description is silent on usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but provides no further behavioral context such as typical response size, permissions required, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the burden but only meets the bare minimum.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified. While it efficiently states the core purpose, it fails to include critical details, making it barely adequate.
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 output schema and minimal description, the agent receives no information about what 'details' are returned. The presence of many sibling tools adds confusion, and the description does not help the agent distinguish this tool's purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the env_id parameter (e.g., its format, source, or relationship to other tools). This leaves the agent without essential context for proper invocation.
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 'Get' and the resource 'details of a specific environment', which is a common pattern. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of details are returned, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_environment_events.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_environments or get_environment_events, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only states it 'gets' attestations, implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or whether it modifies state. No indication of return format or 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, but it omits crucial details. Conciseness is acceptable, but the lack of structure (no front-loading of key info) and missing parameter explanations reduce effectiveness.
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 sibling tools (e.g., inspect_image, get_image_vulnerabilities) and no output schema, the description fails to differentiate this tool's purpose or specify return type. It is incomplete for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters (name, env_id, agent_token) have no descriptions. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no information about parameter meaning, constraints, or defaults.
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 'Get attestations for an image.' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (attestations for an image), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_image_history or get_image_vulnerabilities. However, it lacks specificity about what attestations are or how they are used.
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 such as inspect_image or search_images. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose what the summary includes (e.g., counts, list of updates, severity). The behavior beyond the basic action is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. It lacks essential details, making it more terse than appropriately concise. Missing content forces the agent to rely on inference.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the summary contains, the response format, or how parameters affect the result. For a tool that returns a summary, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the parameters env_id and agent_token. The agent must guess their roles from names alone.
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 'Get a summary of available image updates' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from tools like get_image_vulnerabilities or get_image_history, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like check_image_update or check_all_image_updates, which may overlap in purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_image_update or check_all_image_updates. No context is provided for 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Get vulnerability report', implying read-only behavior, but gives no detail about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what the report contains. This is insufficient for safe and accurate agent decision-making.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of six words, which is concise but lacks substance. While there is no wasted text, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it borderline under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, parameter roles, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any of the three parameters ('image_id', 'env_id', 'agent_token'). The agent is left with only schema types and defaults, which is inadequate for constructing correct calls.
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 resource ('vulnerability report for an image'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_vulnerability_summary' or 'list_all_vulnerabilities', which could cause confusion for an agent selecting among them.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., for a single image vs. all images), nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. This forces the agent to rely solely on the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read operation but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is safe/idempotent. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed.
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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so while it is concise, it is not optimally structured for utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of network topology and the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'topology' entails, the response format, or how this tool fits with sibling tools like inspect_network or get_network_counts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. While env_id is somewhat inferable, agent_token's purpose and usage are completely unclear. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 tool retrieves network topology for an environment. The term 'topology' distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_network or list_networks, though it could be more explicit about the 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_network or list_networks. The description only implies usage with an environment ID but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Get details', omitting permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., project not found), or whether it is a read-only operation. Critical gaps for a retrieval tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is not beneficial when it omits essential information needed for correct invocation.
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 output schema, no annotations, and 3 poorly described parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address error cases, return structure, or differentiate from many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides zero information about the three parameters (project_id, env_id, agent_token), failing to explain their purpose, defaults, or when to use them.
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 retrieves details of a specific Compose project. It uses a specific verb+resource structure and distinguishes from list-oriented sibling tools like list_projects, but 'details' is vague and could be more specific.
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 siblings such as get_project_compose, get_project_file, or get_project_runtime. An agent has no context for selecting this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only says 'Get' implying read-only, but no disclosure of side effects, idempotency, or what 'runtime info' entails. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise (6 words), but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary details. Could be slightly longer to include key information.
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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and many similar siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'runtime info' includes or how to use the parameters effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet description adds no information about parameters (project_id, env_id, agent_token). It fails to explain their meaning or usage, leaving the schema to stand alone.
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?
Description states 'Get the runtime info for a Compose project.' which specifies a verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools like get_project and get_project_compose by focusing on 'runtime info', though this term is somewhat vague.
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. Does not mention when-not to use or provide any context for selection among many sibling get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any potential side effects, permissions required, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description is too brief to add transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified. It is concise, but the lack of content means it does not effectively earn its place. A score of 3 acknowledges it is not verbose, but it is not optimally informative.
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 has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what metrics are returned or how health is measured. The current description is too vague for an agent to fully understand the tool's output or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema parameters (env_id, agent_token) have no descriptions in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain what these parameters mean or how to use them. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names.
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 system health metrics' and the scope 'for the given environment'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while sibling tools exist, this tool is uniquely named and the purpose is distinguishable.
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. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it gets counts, but does not specify what counts mean, whether it is read-only, permissions needed, or any 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is too brief to be fully informative. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness.
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 output schema, the description should clarify what 'volume counts' returns. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the output or how parameters affect behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 meaning to the two parameters (env_id, agent_token). The agent gets no help understanding their purpose or format beyond schema defaults.
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 identifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'volume counts', with the scope 'for the given environment'. It implies a count retrieval but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_volume_sizes' or 'list_volumes'.
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. Among many volume-related tools, there is no distinction or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, or whether it is read-only. The description is too brief to inform the agent of important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It lacks structure and does not use the available space to provide necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
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 zero parameter coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not equip the agent to correctly invoke or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention or explain any parameters (env_id, agent_token). It fails to add meaning beyond the input schema, providing no guidance on defaults, types, or usage.
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 resource ('volume sizes') with context ('for the given environment'). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_volume_counts' or 'list_volumes', but lacks explicit 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to volumes, the absence of usage context limits decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should explicitly disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, non-destructive). While 'Get disk usage' implies a safe read operation, it does not confirm idempotency or lack of side effects. No prerequisites or limitations are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but overly minimal. It lacks critical information, making it more under-specified than efficiently concise.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It omits return value structure, parameter meaning, and usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for any of the three parameters. 'name' is somewhat obvious, but 'env_id' and 'agent_token' are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.
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 disk usage') and the target resource ('a specific volume'). However, it does not differentiate the tool from similar siblings like 'get_volume_sizes', which could cause confusion.
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. There is no mention of use cases or conditions that would make this tool preferable over 'inspect_volume' or 'get_volume_sizes'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on error, or the nature of the returned data. The description adds minimal value beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the main action. However, it is underspecified and lacks necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no other documentation. While concise, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, three parameters with no descriptions, and a minimal description, the tool is severely incomplete. The agent has no way to understand what 'inspect' returns, the role of env_id and agent_token, or the expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description only mentions 'by id', which corresponds to image_id, but ignores env_id and agent_token entirely. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide any meaningful parameter semantics.
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 uses the verb 'inspect' with the resource 'image', clearly indicating the target and action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_container, inspect_network, and inspect_volume, which operate on different resources. However, it does not differentiate from other image-specific tools like get_image_history or get_image_attestations.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_images, list_images, or get_image_*. The description does not state any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'force-kill' implying SIGKILL, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., potential data loss, impact on running processes, or whether the container is merely stopped or removed). The token requirement is mentioned but not explained (how to obtain or use it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), which is concise but sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the action but omits context that would improve usability. It is not verbose, but could be more informative without losing 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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or how the confirmation token works. The sibling tools list includes many container operations, but no guidance on selecting this one over others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 information about the three parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id). The mention of 'confirmation token' vaguely relates to agent_token but is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the action as force-killing a container, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_container (graceful) and remove_container (destructive removal) by implying a forceful stop, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 mentions the requirement for a confirmation token, providing a prerequisite, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stop_container. There is no explicit when-not or mention of alternative tools, leaving the decision unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It omits behavioral traits like whether the list is paginated, real-time, or requires specific permissions, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects or performance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking substance. It could be improved with additional context without becoming verbose.
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 output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., vulnerability IDs, severity) or how to filter by environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the purpose or default values of env_id and agent_token. The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters correctly.
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 (list) and resource (vulnerabilities) with scope (across the environment). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_vulnerability_summary_all, which may serve a similar purpose.
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 such as get_vulnerability_summary_all or get_image_vulnerabilities. The agent lacks context to make an informed choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool lists, implying a read operation, but omits details on authentication (agent_token), idempotency, rate limits, or pagination, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary detail. While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices completeness for brevity, making it minimally viable but not optimally informative.
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 output schema and multiple sibling vulnerability tools, the description should clarify return format, scope (global or per environment), and usage context. It does not address these, leaving the agent with insufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the two parameters (env_id, agent_token). It fails to explain their purpose, acceptable values, or impact on results, leaving the agent uninformed.
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 'ignored vulnerabilities', indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'list_all_vulnerabilities' or specify scope (e.g., per environment), which could cause confusion.
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 'list_all_vulnerabilities' or 'get_vulnerability_summary'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having ignored vulnerabilities) or the role of parameters like env_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It only says 'List all' without disclosing authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it returns full registry details. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it is too sparse even for a simple list. It wastes no words but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not provide enough information for correct tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (env_id, agent_token). The agent has no hint about their purpose or defaults.
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 'container registries', indicating the tool retrieves all registries. This distinguishes it from get_registry which fetches a single registry, though not explicitly stated.
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 like get_registry for specific registries. The description does not mention context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only states it lists volumes, but omits whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format is (IDs, names, full details). It does not add value beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks essential information. Conciseness is positive, but the trade-off is insufficient detail. It earns a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description fails to provide a complete picture. The agent does not know the return format, required permissions, or the role of the optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for parameters. The description does not explain what 'env_id' or 'agent_token' represent or how they affect the listing. The agent must guess the meaning of these parameters.
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 (volumes) and specifies the scope ('in the given environment'), which helps distinguish it from other listing tools like list_volume_backups or list_environments.
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 vs alternatives such as get_volume_usage, inspect_volume, or even list_volume_backups. The agent lacks context on what this list returns compared to other volume-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions stopping and removing containers but omits details like whether networks/volumes are affected, if data persists, or if confirmation is needed. Lacks depth for an operation that is likely destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded, but overly terse. A single sentence is adequate, but it could include more context without harming 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 destructive nature and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return values, side effects, or prerequisites (e.g., project must be running). A user would need to consult external documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description adds no information about any of the three parameters (env_id, project_id, agent_token). No explanation of their meaning or defaults beyond what the schema shows.
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 (stop and remove containers) and resource (Compose project). It distinguishes from generic 'stop' tools by specifying removal, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_project' or 'stop_all_containers'.
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 such as 'stop_all_containers', 'remove_project', or 'deploy_project'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining what pulling images entails (e.g., whether it pulls all images from Compose file, only missing ones, or side effects like downloading layers).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at one sentence, but it sacrifices informativeness. It is not well-structured; missing front-loading of key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with zero parameter documentation. The description fails to cover expected behavior, return values, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameter: 'env_id' (default '0'), 'project_id' (required), or 'agent_token'. No added meaning beyond the schema defaults.
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 'Pull images' and the target 'a Compose project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'pull_image' (single image) and 'build_image' by specifying the project context.
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 like 'pull_image' or 'build_image'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description should fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Redeploy a Compose project' without explaining what actions are taken (e.g., stopping, rebuilding, starting).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is not front-loaded with critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 meaning for the three parameters (env_id, project_id, agent_token). The description does not explain their purpose or required values.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Redeploy' and resource 'Compose project', which distinguishes from siblings like deploy_project, build_project, and restart_project. However, it lacks specificity on what redeployment entails.
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 such as deploy_project or restart_project. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose side effects like volume persistence, required project state, or authorization needs. The minimal description is insufficient for understanding the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence) but at the expense of necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but too brief to be effective.
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, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is severely incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, return values, or operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not clarify any of the three parameters (project_id, env_id, agent_token). It adds no value beyond the schema definition.
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 'Restart' and the resource 'Compose project', but it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like restart_container or redeploy_project.
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, such as restart_container or redeploy_project. The description lacks any context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details such as whether the scan runs asynchronously, if it returns immediately, or what side effects occur. No annotations are provided to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It sacrifices completeness for brevity, failing to provide necessary context.
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?
With three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain return values (e.g., scan ID) and behavior (e.g., asynchronous). It does not, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the purpose of env_id or agent_token, and the image_id parameter is only implied but not detailed.
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 states 'Trigger a vulnerability scan on an image,' which clearly indicates the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_image_vulnerabilities, which could also involve vulnerabilities.
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. For example, it doesn't explain that this tool initiates a scan while get_image_vulnerabilities retrieves results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action without details on idempotency, failure modes, permissions, or whether it waits for completion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one sentence, but it is too brief and lacks structure. It could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
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 having two parameters, many sibling tools, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, errors, or when to use the tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 explanation for the two parameters. The 'env_id' parameter is mentioned implicitly but not named; 'agent_token' is completely absent.
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 starts all stopped containers for a given environment, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'start_stopped_containers', which may have identical functionality.
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 over alternatives like 'start_container' or 'start_stopped_containers'. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the upgrade is destructive, requires permissions, or returns a status. The agent is left guessing about 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of clarity. It could include useful context without being verbose.
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 output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome, how to monitor progress, or any related operations. The tool is underspecified for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no details about the 'env_id' or 'agent_token' parameters. The agent has no semantic understanding of what values to provide or their purpose.
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 ('trigger a system upgrade') and specifies it is for a given environment. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'check_system_upgrade' or 'run_updater', which could be confused.
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 (e.g., check_system_upgrade first) or any prerequisites. The description lacks context about appropriate conditions for triggering an upgrade.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is destructive. For a simple unarchive action, the minimal description may suffice, but it lacks assurance.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is too sparse for the amount of context needed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return values, or usage context, leaving the agent without critical information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters with zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter meaning or usage. The agent cannot infer the role of 'env_id' or 'agent_token' from the description.
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 and resource ('Unarchive a Compose project'), and the sibling 'archive_project' provides contrast, making the purpose unambiguous. However, it could be more explicit about the meaning of unarchive.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The sibling 'archive_project' exists but the description does not direct the agent to use this as the reverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update configuration' without mentioning side effects, whether it is destructive, or if it triggers any automatic actions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is too vague to be effective. It does not follow a structure that front-loads key information or uses whitespace for readability.
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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return values, whether the operation is asynchronous, or required permissions, leaving critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 does not explain any of the five parameters (env_id, project_id, agent_token, project_name, compose_content) beyond what the schema provides, leaving their semantics unclear.
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 'update' and the resource 'Compose project', which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_project_services, which also update project configuration but at a service 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deploy_project, archive_project, or update_project_services. The description lacks 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks behavioral details such as whether it overwrites existing files, size limits, or required volume state. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity sacrifices informativeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, and prerequisite conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds no parameter explanations. The terms 'file' and 'path' are vague; it does not clarify what 'name', 'content', or 'path' mean, nor format requirements (e.g., base64 encoding).
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 (upload) and the target resource (file to a path inside a volume). It differentiates from sibling tools like read_volume_file or delete_volume_file, though it does not 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when or how to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., volume must exist) or when not to use it (e.g., for images, use upload_image).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits but fails to do so. It does not mention default parameter values (e.g., driver=local, env_id=0), authentication requirements via agent_token, or behavior on name conflict. The description is too sparse to inform the agent of side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely underspecified. It sacrifices informative content for brevity, failing to provide useful structure or detail for a tool with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what environment is meant, what the output is, or how parameters interact. Agents would lack critical information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the five parameters (name, driver, env_id, labels, agent_token). The description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new volume in the given environment,' specifying the verb and resource. It adequately distinguishes from related sibling tools like browse_volume, delete_volume, and inspect_volume.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_volume_backup or when not to use it. It lacks context on prerequisites or scenario-based recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description fails to disclose behavioral details like whether the image is stored locally, pushed, or destructive 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but at the expense of necessary details, earning only a middling score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; tool description does not explain any parameter meanings (tag, env_id, agent_token), leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Build' and resource 'image from Dockerfile content', distinguishing it from sibling tools like pull_image or upload_image.
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 vs alternatives, no prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or any destructive potential. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single succinct sentence with no extraneous words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with multiple parameters, trading conciseness for completeness.
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 should provide contextual completeness about prerequisites, return values, or effects. It does not, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the three parameters (env_id, project_id, agent_token). It fails to explain their roles or defaults, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.
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 uses the verb 'Build' and specifies the resource as 'a Compose project's images', which clearly indicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_image' or 'pull_project_images', though the context of 'Compose project' adds 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 usage guidance is provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as prerequisites or contextual hints. This omission forces the agent to rely on trial and error.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a destructive operation but does not discuss permanence, impact on logs, or safety mechanisms. The mention of a confirmation token is unsupported.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second contains misleading information about a missing parameter.
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 potentially destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after clearing, whether the operation is reversible, or how to safely use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the three parameters (env_id, dry_run, agent_token). Worse, it references a confirmation_token that does not exist in the schema.
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 it clears activity history for an environment, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cancel_activity' or 'list_activities'.
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 mentions a requirement for confirmation via confirmation_token, but this parameter is absent from the input schema, causing confusion. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Create a new network' but omits whether it overrides existing networks, required permissions, or side effects. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is too sparse to be fully useful. It achieves conciseness but at the cost of missing critical information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address return value, error cases, or any context beyond the basic action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for parameters (name, driver, env_id, agent_token). It does not clarify the role of 'driver' or 'env_id', leaving the agent unaware of defaults or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action 'Create' and the resource 'network', with the scope 'in the given environment'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_container or create_volume, and aligns with the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 (e.g., connect_container_to_network) or what prerequisites exist. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Create' implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words, but overly brief for the complexity. Could include more detail without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to mention required parameters, defaults, or what happens upon creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. Description does not explain any of the 4 parameters (name, url, env_id, agent_token), their purposes, or defaults. Agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action (create) and resource (webhook) with context (in the given environment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_webhook, update_webhook, list_webhooks, and trigger_webhook.
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 such as update_webhook or trigger_webhook. Lacks prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if an invalid env_id is provided. The minimal description fails to disclose traits beyond the basic function.
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, straightforward sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded, but its brevity sacrifices completeness.
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 output schema and the low parameter coverage, the description should provide more context about return values (e.g., format of statistics) or expected input formats. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly without additional inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the purpose or constraints of the 'env_id' or 'agent_token' parameters. For example, it does not clarify what 'env_id' refers to or whether 'agent_token' is for authentication. The description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's technical structure.
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 'Get image count statistics for the environment' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (image count statistics), specifying the context (for the environment). While distinct from siblings like 'list_images' which returns list info, the term 'statistics' is slightly vague—what exactly constitutes image count statistics? A more precise description could elevate clarity.
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 such as 'get_container_counts' or 'get_volume_counts'. The description merely states what the tool does without mentioning prerequisites or recommended contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Get...status'. It does not disclose if the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The behavioral traits are opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. Conciseness is acceptable but at the cost of completeness.
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 output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. The agent cannot determine what 'status' entails or what the tool returns, making safe invocation uncertain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 meaning for parameters env_id and agent_token. The names hint at environment ID and agent token, but the description does not clarify their purpose or expected values.
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 'Get' and the resource 'vulnerability scanner (Trivy) status'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_vulnerability_summary or scan_image_vulnerabilities, which also relate to vulnerabilities.
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. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns a summary, but does not explain what type of summary (e.g., counts, severities), whether it is real-time, or any side effects. The behavioral transparency is minimal.
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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is perhaps too concise, missing opportunities to add valuable context without sacrificing brevity.
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 low complexity and no output schema, the description lacks detail about the returned summary type and scope. It does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (env_id, image_id, agent_token). The agent must guess their meanings, which is insufficient.
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 retrieves a summary of vulnerabilities for an image. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_image_vulnerabilities' or 'get_vulnerability_summary_all', which may have similar purposes.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scope, or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, pagination, or what is returned. The description is too brief to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks important details. It could be longer to include parameter hints or output format without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description fails to provide essential context. It does not explain what 'backups' means, what information is listed, or how the optional parameters affect results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions for any parameter), and the tool description does not explain the purpose or expected values for name, env_id, or agent_token. The agent has no context to correctly populate these parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all backups for a volume' clearly states the verb (list), resource (backups), and scope (for a volume). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_volume_backup, delete_volume_backup, and restore_volume_backup.
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 inspect_volume or list_volumes. There are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that removal requires confirmation via a confirmation_token, but this parameter is not included in the input schema. This creates confusion about how to actually invoke the tool. Additionally, with no annotations, the description fails to disclose whether the operation is destructive, irreversible, or has cascading effects on associated resources.
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 very short with two sentences, no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and directly states the action and a key requirement. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format including parameter 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?
Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the confirmation flow, how to obtain the token, or the consequences of removal. The missing parameter in schema exacerbates the incompleteness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage: the description provides no additional meaning for the sole parameter env_id. It does not explain what an environment ID is or how to obtain it. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but entirely fails to do so.
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 that the tool removes an environment, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this removal from other removal tools (e.g., remove_container, remove_image) present in the sibling list, but the name itself is sufficiently specific.
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, such as deactivating or updating an environment. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for removal, nor any reference to related tools like confirm_operation that might be involved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation. It does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the container is stopped before starting, any potential data loss, or required permissions. For a mutation tool, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. While it is efficiently front-loaded, it is too brief to convey necessary detail, balancing conciseness with completeness.
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 has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effect of optional parameters (timeout, env_id, agent_token) or what happens if the container is not running, nor does it describe the return value or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It fails to add meaning beyond the input schema, leaving the agent to infer usage from the JSON schema alone.
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 ('restart') and the resource ('a running container'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_container, stop_container, and kill_container. However, it doesn't emphasize that the container must be running, though this is implied.
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 (e.g., for non-running containers, use start_container instead). No contextual usage hints or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'gracefully' but doesn't specify the signal sent, timeout handling, or effect on container state. The description is inadequate for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the key verb, but it is under-specified. Conciseness is marred by missing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 4 parameters (1 required), no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain prerequisites, expected inputs, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the four parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving the agent uncertain about how 'timeout', 'env_id', and 'agent_token' affect the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and the resource ('a running container'), and adds 'gracefully' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'kill_container' that do a forceful stop.
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 like 'kill_container' or 'pause_container'. The description only implies graceful stopping without stating when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must carry the burden. It implies a read operation via 'check', but fails to disclose important traits like authentication needs, error handling, or whether the operation is safe (non-destructive).
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. While efficient, it may be too brief for adequate understanding, slightly less than ideal for completeness.
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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description leaves gaps: no mention of return type, behavior when image not found, or differentiation from similar tools. Insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only hints at the 'reference' parameter indirectly. It does not explain 'reference' (e.g., image ID, name, tag?) and omits 'env_id' and 'agent_token' entirely, providing minimal added meaning.
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?
Clearly states the action (check) and resource (image update) and specifies 'by reference'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tool 'check_all_image_updates', missing a chance to clarify scope.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_all_image_updates'. The description is purely declarative without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the basic function but omits important details: whether the container continues running, what happens to environment variables or volumes, and the purpose of non-standard parameters like env_id and agent_token.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity sacrifices completeness; it could be longer to cover key details without becoming verbose.
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 has 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, or parameter meanings, leaving an agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 fails to explain any parameter beyond the name and type. The meaning of repo, env_id, and agent_token is unclear, and even tag's default value is not contextualized.
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 ('Commit a container's current state') and the result ('to a new image'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_container, update_container, and tag_image by focusing on creating an image from an existing container's state.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use commit_container versus alternatives like create_container or tag_image, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'deploy' without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, or what happens to existing projects. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, 2 required, no annotations or output schema, the description lacks critical context such as the format of compose_content, the effect of env_id, or how agent_token is used. It is not complete for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 information about parameters like env_id, agent_token, project_name, or compose_content. The description fails to explain their purpose or expected values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'deploy', the resource 'new Compose project', and the source 'from compose content'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like build_project or archive_project.
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 (e.g., build_project, update_project). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function, omitting important details such as whether the container must be stopped, if disconnection is reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on running services).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the core action, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While concise, it is underspecified and could be expanded without being verbose.
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 has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain parameter semantics or behavioral context, leaving critical gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain that 'network_id' and 'container_id' are required, nor the roles of 'env_id' and 'agent_token'. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (disconnect) and the two entities (container, network). It directly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'connect_container_to_network', which performs the opposite action.
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, prerequisites (e.g., container must be connected to the network), or alternatives. It lacks exclusions or context about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the content is raw text, encoding, or any access requirements. Minimal information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary detail, so conciseness does not serve completeness well.
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 the tool (three parameters, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, parameter purposes, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 meaning beyond the parameter names. Parameters like 'env_id', 'project_id', and 'agent_token' are unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema docs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Compose file content for a project'. Among sibling tools like 'get_project' and 'get_project_file', it uniquely identifies its target.
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. Does not specify prerequisites or context in which retrieving Compose file content is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is appropriate. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or error responses. The description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without excess words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It could be slightly expanded to include parameter or output hints without losing 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 (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., config, state, network settings), which is critical for an agent to interpret the response. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id) with zero schema description coverage (0%). The description does not explain the meaning, format, or role of any parameter. The agent has no guidance beyond parameter names and types.
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 'Get detailed information about a specific container' clearly states the action (get) and resource (container information). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like list_containers, but does not differentiate from other inspect tools (e.g., inspect_image, inspect_network) beyond the resource type.
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 (e.g., get_container_logs, get_container_stats). The description does not mention prerequisites, suitable contexts, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether 'inspect' is read-only, what kind of output to expect, or any side effects. This leaves the agent underinformed.
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 concise sentence that effectively states the core purpose. It wastes no words, though it lacks a structured breakdown of parameters or behavior.
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 existence of many sibling volume tools (browse_volume, read_volume_file, etc.) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not define what 'inspect' means—whether it returns metadata, configuration, or something else—making it hard for an agent to decide when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by name', which clarifies the name parameter's role, but schema description coverage is 0%. The env_id and agent_token parameters are not explained at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 states 'Inspect a volume by name', which clearly identifies the action (inspect) and resource (volume). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browse_volume or read_volume_file, which could also be used for volume inspection.
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 such as browse_volume or get_volume_sizes. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Warns that the action is destructive and mentions dry_run and confirmation, but does not explain how 'unused' is determined, what volumes are affected, or the exact consequences. Without annotations, more detail is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), but not overly verbose. However, it lacks crucial details, so conciseness comes at the expense of informativeness.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and three unelaborated parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers destructive nature but omits parameter meanings, return values, and behavior details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the three parameters (env_id, dry_run, agent_token) beyond a brief mention of dry_run. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it prunes unused Docker volumes, with a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_volume (targeted removal) and prune_system (broader scope).
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?
Provides minimal guidance about using dry_run first, but does not compare this tool to alternatives like remove_volume or prune_system, nor specify when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether pulling overwrites existing images, authentication requirements, side effects on the environment, or error handling. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but lacks critical details for four parameters and no output schema. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Front-loading is minimal.
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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how this tool interacts with other image-related tools. The agent lacks 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent has no guidance on the meaning or format of parameters like 'repository' (e.g., full image name?), 'env_id' (environment identifier?), or 'agent_token' (purpose). The description adds zero value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action ('Pull'), resource ('image'), and destination ('from registry into environment'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like build_image (builds images) and upload_image (uploads to registry).
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 (e.g., check_image_update, list_images). Prerequisites such as registry access or authentication are not mentioned. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. As a search operation, it is likely safe, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It conveys core purpose efficiently, though parameter details are missing.
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 simple search tool, the description lacks context on return format, scope, and parameter values. Without output schema or richer description, the agent may not know what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only addresses 'query' via 'name/query', ignoring 'env_id' and 'agent_token'. Meaning is insufficient for correct parameter usage.
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 searches images by name/query in the environment, specifying verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_images', though the action 'search' implies filtering.
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 like 'list_images' or other image-related tools. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'enable or disable' but omits side effects (e.g., does it restart the container?), persistence, permissions, or error conditions. The agent cannot anticipate the tool's impact from this description.
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, concise sentence with no filler. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter hints without losing 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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error scenarios, or the meaning of env_id and agent_token. For a simple mutation tool, more context would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not elaborate on env_id, agent_token, or their defaults. While container_id and enabled are self-evident, env_id and agent_token lack context, reducing the agent's ability to use them correctly.
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 ('enable or disable') and the resource ('automatic updates for a container'). However, 'automatic updates' is somewhat ambiguous; specifying the type of updates (e.g., image updates) would improve clarity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_container or check_image_updates.
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 such as update_container or check_image_error. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'stop'. It does not clarify if containers are stopped gracefully, if there are side effects (e.g., network disconnection), failure handling, or the order of stopping. The lack of detail hinders an agent's understanding of the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, making it concise but potentially too terse. It front-loads the purpose but omits necessary context. Every word is functional, yet the overall information density is low.
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 output schema and annotations, the description should compensate with richer context. It does not mention return values, confirmation prompts, error behavior, or idempotency. The tool stops multiple containers, yet no completeness in specifying scope or conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the two parameters (env_id, agent_token). Their defaults are insufficient for an agent to know their meaning or correct usage. The tool description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'stop' and the resource 'all running containers' within a given environment. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'stop_container' (single container) and 'start_all_containers' (opposite action).
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 'stop_container' or 'kill_container'. The description does not specify typical usage scenarios or whether it should be used for bulk operations instead of individual container stops.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses destructiveness but fails to describe recusive deletion behavior, permissions needed, or the exact role of the confirmation token. No annotations exist to provide additional guidance.
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?
Extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences, but lacks detail at the expense of completeness.
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?
Leaves out crucial context: no explanation of parameters, no reference to confirmation flow, and no output description. Incomplete for a destructive tool with four parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No descriptions in schema or text explaining 'name', 'path', 'env_id', or 'agent_token'. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not.
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?
Clearly states it deletes a file or directory inside a volume, distinguishing it from read-only or creation tools. However, it could specify the volume name parameter.
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?
Mentions destructive nature and confirmation token requirement, implying caution and a two-step process. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives like read_volume_file or confirm_operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states a read operation but omits details about permissions, performance implications, aggregation behavior, or return format. The brief sentence adds 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no extraneous text. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, earning a 4 rather than 5.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks crucial context: no output schema, no parameter explanations, no behavioral notes. It is too sparse to fully address an agent's needs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention or explain any parameters. For two parameters (env_id, agent_token), the description adds zero semantic value beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('get') and the resource ('vulnerability summary across all scanned images'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_vulnerability_summary' which likely scopes to a specific image. The phrase 'across all scanned images' provides precise scope.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_vulnerability_summary' or 'list_all_vulnerabilities'. No context on prerequisites or appropriate scenarios is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden; it states 'list' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any authentication requirements, or side effects. This is insufficient for a complete understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is too minimal to be effective. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to describe the return format, parameter details, or any behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the purpose of the two parameters (env_id and agent_token) beyond the vague 'for the given environment'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value over the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'webhooks' with a scope 'for the given environment', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, and trigger_webhook.
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 when you need to list webhooks for a specific environment, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, and provides no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states the action without explaining if it overwrites existing tags, if it requires authentication, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no waste. Front-loaded with the action. However, it could be expanded to include parameter hints without losing 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?
With 4 parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool. Missing details about source/target format and env_id role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no information about the parameters (source, target, env_id, agent_token), leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact action: tag an existing image with a new repository name. It uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_image or remove_image.
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 (e.g., retagging with other tools) or when not to use it. The description implies usage but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., container recreation, downtime), required permissions, or whether the operation is safe or destructive. With no annotations provided, the description fails to convey essential transparency 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly expanded to include important context without losing 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 (three parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'update services' entails—e.g., whether it recreates containers, applies changes immediately, or requires a restart. The sibling tools suggest a Docker Compose context, but the description lacks essential operational details for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of the three parameters ('env_id', 'project_id', 'agent_token'). The description only mentions 'Compose project', but does not clarify which parameter identifies it. This provides no added value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update services') and the resource ('Compose project from the current compose config'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_project' which updates the entire project configuration.
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 or when not to use this tool. There are no mentions of prerequisites, alternative tools, or scenarios where this operation is inappropriate. Sibling tools like 'deploy_project' or 'project_down' could be alternatives, but no comparison is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It doesn't disclose whether listing is recursive, how results are returned (e.g., format), or any side effects. For a read-only operation, more context would be helpful.
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 very concise (10 words) and front-loaded with the action. It could add a bit more detail without losing conciseness, but it's not wasteful.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't describe return format, error cases, or whether path supports wildcards. The agent needs more context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate, but it doesn't mention parameters at all. Parameter names (name, path, env_id, agent_token) are somewhat self-explanatory but lack detail (e.g., what is env_id used for?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List files and directories at a path inside a volume' clearly states the action (list), the resource (files and directories inside a volume), and the path parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_volumes (which lists volumes) and read_volume_file (which reads file contents).
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 (e.g., read_volume_file for reading content, list_volumes for volumes list). It doesn't mention prerequisites like volume existence or permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations. Description only states 'Get Docker version' without mentioning side effects, authentication needs (agent_token implies auth but not clarified), or return format.
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?
Single sentence, under 10 words. Efficient and to the point.
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?
With 2 non-obvious parameters (env_id, agent_token) and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. Lacks details on parameter usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description does not explain the role of env_id (default '0') or agent_token (default null). No value added beyond parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get Docker version for the given environment' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_docker_info or get_environment.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., get_docker_info). No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Get events' without any details about what events are, potential limits, pagination, side effects, or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the cost of missing important details. It is not wordy, but could be longer to add value.
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 presence of many sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the returned events look like, pagination, or how to interpret the data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters beyond implying environment_id is used for filtering. The agent_token parameter is entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'events' for a specific environment, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_events or get_environment.
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 like list_events, nor any mention of 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., whether ignoring excludes the vulnerability from scans), reversibility, or required permissions. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, concise, and to the point. Could be slightly more informative without losing 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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, no annotations, and three parameters (one required and undocumented), the description fails to explain return values, error handling, or the purpose of optional parameters. Incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only covers 'urn' via 'by URN', leaving env_id and agent_token unexplained. The description adds little beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Ignore' and resource 'vulnerability' with explicit identification method 'by URN', distinguishing it from siblings like list_ignored_vulnerabilities or unignore_vulnerability.
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 ignore vs other actions, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, pagination, or side effects, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded, but it sacrifices useful detail, making it only minimally adequate.
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?
With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness—it does not explain parameter behavior, return format, or limitations, which is insufficient for a listing tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 meaning for the three parameters (all, env_id, agent_token), failing 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.
Purpose5/5
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 'containers' with a qualifier 'for a given Arcane environment', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_activities or list_images.
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 when listing containers for an environment, but does not provide when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings with similar functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only discloses pagination and global scope. It does not mention read-only behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with key info but lacks completeness.
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 list operation with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description omits crucial context such as pagination details (page size, token usage), output format, or any filtering capabilities. Incomplete relative to sibling tool richness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description does not explain the single optional parameter agent_token (e.g., its purpose or effect). The parameter's semantics are not conveyed beyond the schema's type definition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List system events' with specific modifiers 'paginated, across all environments', distinguishing it from siblings like get_environment_events (scoped to one environment) and get_activity (single event).
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 listing events across all environments, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_environment_events, read_audit_log, or list_activities. No when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It states the tool lists images in a given environment but lacks details on pagination, authentication, or rate limits. It is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional structure or examples.
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 output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits details about return values, pagination, or filtering, leaving the agent underinformed for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (env_id, agent_token). The purpose of agent_token is unclear, and env_id's default of '0' is not contextualized.
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 'images' with scope 'in the given environment', distinguishing it from unrelated tools. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like 'search_images' or 'list_containers'.
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 like 'search_images'. The description does not provide context on prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation but says nothing about error handling, authorization needs, side effects, or output characteristics. The description is too minimal.
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 clear sentence, free of unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter or behavioral context without losing 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 lack of annotations and output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not cover what the tool returns, how it handles edge cases, or any dependencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only mentions 'for the given environment' but does not clarify env_id's role or the purpose of agent_token. The default values are noted in the schema but not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'port mappings', specifying the scope 'for the given environment'. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_containers or list_networks, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description merely states the function 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the basic action without mentioning side effects, read-only nature, permissions required, or any rate limits. The default value for 'lines' is not mentioned in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It is not verbose, but it could include more useful details without being overly long. The conciseness is good, but it sacrifices completeness.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks clarity on the 'destructive operations' qualifier and does not explain if it filters events or focuses on a specific log. No output format is described, but that's acceptable without an output schema.
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, so the schema already documents both parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic information beyond the schema, like clarifying the meaning of 'event_type' values or how the 'lines' parameter works.
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 (read) and resource (audit log), and specifies it's for destructive operations, which gives some differentiation from generic audit log tools like list_events. However, it's slightly ambiguous whether 'destructive operations' is a filter or the scope of the 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_events or get_environment_events. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling for missing files, or return format. Since no annotations are provided, the burden is higher and the description is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it lacks detail that would make it more helpful. It is not verbose, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on usage and behavior.
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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format, error scenarios, or prerequisites like volume existence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter beyond what parameter names imply. Parameters like env_id and agent_token remain unclear in purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'contents of a file inside a volume', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_volume (lists files) or delete_volume_file.
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 such as browsing a volume or reading other file types. Lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the old container is removed or stopped, what permissions are needed, or any side effects like downtime.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, but its brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is one sentence with no structure, but it is not overly long.
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 three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the redeployment process, response format, or parameter usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id). The names alone are insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'redeploy' and the resource 'container' and specifies that it uses the original image and configuration, which distinguishes it from create, update, or restart operations.
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 update_container, restart_container, or create_container. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only discloses the need for a confirmation token, but omits whether removal is irreversible, whether it fails gracefully, or side effects like cascade deletion. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words, though brevity sacrifices detail. Could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 destructive tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks critical behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidance, making it inadequate for confident agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description mentions only image_id and the confirmation token implicitly (via agent_token). It does not explain parameters like force, env_id, or agent_token. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Explicitly states 'Remove image by id', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_container or prune_images, as it targets images uniquely.
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?
Mentions that a confirmation token is required but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like prune_images or other removal tools. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Destructive' and 'requires confirmation token', which warns about irreversibility and an extra step. However, without annotations, it lacks details on what exactly is destroyed (e.g., whether associated resources like containers or settings are affected) or how the confirmation token is provided.
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, comprising two short sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose: 'Remove a network' for action, 'Destructive' for behavior, and 'requires confirmation token' for constraint.
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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or the meaning of parameters, leaving significant gaps in understanding for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes three parameters (env_id, network_id, agent_token) with 0% schema description coverage, but the description does not explain any of them. The agent cannot infer the meaning of env_id, how to use agent_token for confirmation, or that network_id is required.
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 'Remove' and the resource 'a network', making the tool's primary action explicit. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'remove_container' or 'remove_environment' beyond the resource type, missing an opportunity to clarify scope or context.
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 'prune_networks' or 'disconnect_container_from_network'. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or any scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only says 'Remove' without disclosing behavioral details such as whether it deletes associated resources, if it's irreversible, or if any confirmation is required. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of the tool's impact.
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 filler. However, it is overly terse, sacrificing clarity for brevity. A slightly longer description with parameter hints would improve usability without sacrificing 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 destructive nature of the tool and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the scope of removal, what happens to associated objects, or any safety considerations. The agent remains underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description must explain the parameters but does not mention any of them (env_id, project_id, agent_token). The agent must rely solely on the schema field names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a Compose project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_project or update_project.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., archive_project, project_down), nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Test connectivity' but omits what happens on success/failure, whether it modifies state, required permissions, or side effects like logging. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate outcomes.
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 clear sentence with no extraneous words, achieving conciseness. It is front-loaded with the action ('Test connectivity'). However, it could be slightly more structured without losing brevity.
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 output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should provide enough context for the agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain parameters, return values, or error handling, making it incomplete despite the simple purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The text does not explain the purpose of `env_id` or `agent_token`, leaving their roles ambiguous. The agent must guess from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Test connectivity to a container registry' uses a specific verb (test) and resource (registry connectivity), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_registry, get_registry, or check_image_update. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 (e.g., get_registry to check existence), no prerequisites (e.g., registry must exist), and no conditions under which it should not be used. An agent has no contextual cues for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but is minimal. It does not disclose that the tool likely updates only the enabled field, or explain the role of optional parameters like env_id and agent_token. Behavioral details beyond the basic action are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one phrase. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.
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 output schema and 4 undocumented parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not inform the agent about return values, optional parameter usage, or prerequisites for calling the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. It adds no meaning beyond the tool's action, leaving parameters like webhook_id, enabled, env_id, and agent_token unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enable or disable a webhook' clearly states the specific action of toggling the enabled state. It differentiates from sibling tools like create_webhook, delete_webhook, list_webhooks, and trigger_webhook by specifying the exact operation.
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 does not mention that it should be used to change only the enabled status, nor does it reference sibling tools for other webhook modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses confirmation requirement, but the mention of 'confirmation_token' does not clearly map to 'agent_token' parameter. No info on destructiveness, rollback, or results. Ambiguous and incomplete.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence plus requirement note. No redundancy, but could be structured better with parameter context.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to explain how to obtain ignore_id or confirmation token, what the tool returns, or prerequisites. Incomplete for a reversal action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description only mentions 'confirmation_token' without explaining any of the three parameters (env_id, ignore_id, agent_token). No added meaning over schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the action 'un-ignore a previously ignored vulnerability' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'ignore_vulnerability' and other tools.
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?
Mentions requirement for confirmation via token but does not specify when to use (e.g., after listing ignored vulnerabilities) or exclude alternatives. Some guidance implied but insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It suggests a read-only check but fails to disclose side effects, permission requirements, or safety profile. The description is too brief to convey behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, self-contained sentence with no redundancy. Every word adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the key action and object.
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 tool with 2 parameters (0 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the meaning of availability, the response format, and parameter details. The current description leaves important gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description makes no mention of the parameters ('env_id', 'agent_token'). The purpose and format of these parameters are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check') and the resource ('system upgrade availability'), and specifies the context ('for the given environment'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'trigger_upgrade' which performs the upgrade, and 'get_updater_status' which checks the updater service, making its purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a preliminary check before an upgrade, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_updater_status' or 'trigger_upgrade'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the tool gets live stats and may fail with 404, but does not detail the stats returned, side effects, or permissions required. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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 two sentences with immediate purpose statement and a helpful note. No wasted words; the note is front-loaded after the main intent. Excellent 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?
Without an output schema, the description should at least hint at what stats are returned (e.g., CPU, memory). It fails to do so, and the 0% parameter coverage leaves the agent guessing about inputs. The workaround note adds some value but overall completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters (env_id, agent_token, container_id). The tool requires container_id, but the description omits this and other parameter meanings, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get live resource usage stats for a container,' specifying a verb (Get), resource (resource usage stats), and scope (for a container). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_container_logs' or 'inspect_container'.
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 when live stats are needed but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude conditions. It provides error-handling guidance (SSH workaround on 404), but lacks comparison with similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions downloading a tar archive, but does not disclose response format, required authentication (agent_token), or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-like 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?
Single concise sentence that directly states the purpose without any wasted words.
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?
With 3 parameters including optional auth token, no output schema, and a response that likely involves a binary download, the description is incomplete. It lacks info on response format, error cases, and prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 meaning beyond parameter names. It references 'by name' but does not explain env_id or agent_token, leaving the agent without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports an image by name as a tar archive, which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools that retrieve metadata.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. The description implies export for download, but lacks context about prerequisites or comparison with siblings like pull_image or upload_image.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions that starting is optional and explains command string splitting. However, it does not disclose what happens on duplicate names, return values, or error conditions.
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?
Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the structure could group related parameter hints better.
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?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks critical details about required parameters, return behavior, and prerequisites, making it insufficient for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only command and env/labels are partially explained. Required parameters image and name, plus others like env_id and agent_token, receive no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates and optionally starts a container, which sets it apart from sibling tools like start_container or commit_container.
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 like start_container or update_container. The description only gives formatting tips without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only indicates a read operation ('get'), but fails to mention any potential errors (e.g., registry not found), permissions needed, or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is highly concise and easy to parse.
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?
For a simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and action but lacks details about the return value (e.g., what properties of the registry are returned) and error handling. Would benefit from mentioning output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It only implies that 'registry_id' is the identifier, but does not mention 'env_id' or 'agent_token'. The description adds marginal value over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a container registry by ID' clearly states the action (get/resource) and the resource (container registry) along with the retrieval criterion (by ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_registries' (which lists all) and 'create_registry' (which creates).
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 usage context is provided. There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_registries', nor any prerequisites or conditions (e.g., existence of the registry).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'current and recent' but does not define time bounds, ordering, pagination, or authentication needs. The agent lacks insight into how activities are filtered or returned.
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?
A single sentence with no filler efficiently conveys the tool's core function. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.
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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return format, result limits, or any side effects. The agent might need to test to understand behavior fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning: 'for an environment' hints at the env_id parameter but does not explain the agent_token or defaults. The agent must infer parameter roles without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'current and recent background activities for an environment.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_activity' (specific activity), 'cancel_activity', and 'clear_activity_history' by implying a list scope with time recency.
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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or conditions for use. Siblings like 'get_activity' or 'clear_activity_history' could be relevant but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description effectively discloses the key behavioral trait: the tool lacks a native API endpoint and uses SSH as a fallback, returning an error if unavailable. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions needed, or whether the command runs synchronously or asynchronously.
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 concise: two short sentences clearly stating purpose and a critical caveat. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous information is present.
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 executing commands in containers and the absence of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits return format, error details, or behavioral expectations like blocking vs. non-blocking execution, leaving gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 meaning beyond parameter names. The parameters container_id, command, env_id, and agent_token are not explained. The description merely restates 'command' without any additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Execute a command inside a running container.' This verb+resource specification is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_containers or get_container_logs. The additional note about API limitations further clarifies the tool's role.
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 implicitly indicates usage by stating the action and the fallback behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_container_logs for output). No exclusions or comparisons are provided, only a technical limitation note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the API may not expose a direct logs endpoint and suggests a workaround, which is useful. But it omits other behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or output format.
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: two sentences that efficiently convey the main action and a critical caveat. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted words.
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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and lack of param descriptions, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and a failure scenario but fails to document inputs or outputs, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (tail, env_id, agent_token, container_id). The agent has no semantic understanding of what each parameter does.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Fetch logs from a container', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_container or get_container_stats, all of 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.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a workaround for when the API returns 404 (use SSH to Docker host), which is a usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, limiting its guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
States 'Destructive; requires confirmation token' which adds behavioral context beyond just 'remove volume'. However, no explanation of what happens if volume is in use, or the nature of the confirmation token.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.
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?
Lacks details on return values, error handling, or interaction with confirmation mechanism. No output schema, so description should provide more context about outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only addresses the 'name' parameter implicitly ('by name'). The other three parameters (force, env_id, agent_token) are not explained in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action ('Remove a volume by name'), resource ('volume'), and distinguishes from sibling removal tools by specifying 'volume'. Also adds unique context like 'Destructive; requires confirmation token'.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., delete_volume_backup). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses destructive nature and need for confirmation token, but does not describe what happens if the token is missing or invalid, nor the tool's synchronous/asynchronous behavior. Annotations are absent, so description carries the burden but only partially covers behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks structured details. While it is front-loaded, it omits necessary information like parameter mapping and success/failure outcomes.
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 destructive nature, four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the confirmation token mechanism, error handling, or the impact on the volume, making it incomplete for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'confirmation token' but does not specify which parameter maps to it (likely agent_token). With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify each parameter's role; it only hints at one of four parameters, leaving volume_name, env_id, and backup_id unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it restores a volume backup, distinguishing from sibling tools like create_volume_backup and delete_volume_backup. The destructive nature and confirmation token requirement are directly stated.
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?
Implies usage for restoring a backup with destructive consequences, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. The mention of a confirmation token suggests a safety check, but no exclusion criteria or prior steps are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states it starts stopped containers, but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, idempotency, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 11 words, concise and front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words.
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 2 undocumented parameters, the description is too brief. It lacks explanation of parameters, return values, prerequisites, and behavioral context. The agent cannot confidently use this tool without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the parameters (env_id, agent_token) at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent without guidance on what these parameters represent or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'start', the resource 'containers that are currently stopped', and the scope 'for the given environment'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'start_all_containers' (starts all containers) and 'start_container' (starts a specific container).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use: when you want to start only stopped containers. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives like 'start_all_containers' or 'start_container'. The context is reasonably clear but could be improved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are destructive. It only states that it updates configuration, leaving the agent uninformed about behaviors beyond the basic action.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the purpose but could benefit from additional details without significant bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what aspects of configuration can be updated, how to specify them, or what the outcome/response is. Given the low schema coverage and missing parameters for configuration values, the agent cannot use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any parameters despite zero schema description coverage. It names 'container_id' implicitly but provides no meaning for 'env_id' or 'agent_token'. The agent cannot infer what these parameters control from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'container's configuration' with context (e.g., after image or resource changes). It distinguishes from sibling tools that perform other operations on containers like commit, create, or stop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('after image or resource changes'), which helps in selecting it over other container modification tools. However, it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool lists projects in a given environment, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not mention any side effects, default behavior (e.g., default env_id of '0'), or return format. Basic transparency is achieved but not enriched.
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 sentence of 8 words, highly concise and front-loaded. Every word is relevant, but the brevity sacrifices important details. It is efficient but not maximally informative.
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 multiple sibling list tools and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, parameter defaults, or prerequisites. For an agent to correctly use this tool, it needs more context, such as the effect of default env_id and the role of agent_token.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify parameter meanings. It only hints at 'environment' for env_id, but does not explain the format or default. agent_token is not mentioned at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Compose projects', with the scope 'in the given environment'. This distinguishes it from other list tools (e.g., list_containers, list_volumes) and project-specific tools (e.g., get_project). It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context for when to use the tool (to list projects in an environment), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. There are many sibling tools, and the agent might benefit from guidance on choosing this over similar tools like get_project or get_project_counts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes effect as 'freeze processes' but no annotations provided. Lacks details on state changes, side effects, or authorization needs. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Highly concise.
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?
Minimal description for a simple tool, but given many sibling tools and no output schema, more context on when to use it would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and description provides no information about parameters. With three parameters and one required, the description fails to add meaning beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (pause) and resource (container), with parenthetical explanation. Distinguished from siblings like stop or kill by emphasizing freezing processes.
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 (e.g., stop, kill, unpause). No context for prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool is destructive and requires confirmation, which is important behavioral context. But with no annotations, it could provide more details about side effects or state changes beyond the confirmation requirement.
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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and adding a key requirement. No unnecessary words.
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 is destructive with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, preconditions (e.g., empty registry), or behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (env_id, agent_token, registry_id). Additionally, it mentions 'confirmation_token' which is not present in the input schema, causing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('container registry'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_registry, update_registry, and test_registry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states that confirmation via confirmation_token is required, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, though the context is implicitly clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature and the need for a confirmation token, which are critical behavioral traits. However, details like permanence or required permissions are omitted.
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 at 9 words, with front-loaded action and warning. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
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 (destructive, 3 params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter guidance, return value description, and situational context (e.g., when deletion is appropriate vs. restore/backup).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter (e.g., backup_id, env_id, agent_token). The mention of 'confirmation token' hints at agent_token but is insufficient. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete a volume backup' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_volume_backup, list_volume_backups, and restore_volume_backup.
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 mentions 'Destructive; requires confirmation token.' This warns of the operation's danger and a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructiveness and a confirmation requirement, but does not explain how confirmation_token is obtained or handled, nor any other side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and key behavioral warnings. No unnecessary words.
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 output schema and three parameters, the description lacks return value information and detailed parameter guidance. It does not explain what happens after deletion or how to handle the confirmation_token process.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters (env_id, webhook_id, agent_token). It mentions confirmation_token but that is not in the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a webhook' with the specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook, update_webhook, trigger_webhook, and list_webhooks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance by noting that the tool is destructive and requires confirmation via a token. This helps the agent decide when to use it, though it lacks mention of alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the tool lists environments without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or whether results are paginated. The description fails to compensate for missing annotations.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes meaning.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks information about output format, pagination, or any constraints, leaving some gaps for an agent to correctly handle results.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter info. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds the clarifying context 'local + remote agents', which is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 'environments', and specifies 'local + remote agents', which distinguishes it from other list tools like list_containers or list_activities.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_environment or other list tools. Context implies listing all environments, but no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It declares a read operation ('list'), which is appropriate. However, it lacks details such as whether the result includes network metadata, how pagination works, or if permissions are needed. It is adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to read. However, it may be too brief, missing opportunities to add context without becoming verbose.
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?
For a listing tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks details on return values, parameter dependencies, or behavior when env_id is not set. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description only mentions 'the given environment,' implying env_id's role, but completely ignores the agent_token parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool lists all networks, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'inspect_network' (single network) and 'get_network_counts' (count only). It uses a specific verb and resource.
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 indicates the tool is used to list networks 'in the given environment,' providing basic context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'inspect_network' for details or 'prune_networks' for cleanup. No explicit when-not-to guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description explains the destructive nature and the dry_run vs. execution flow. However, it fails to fully describe the behavior: what happens after the confirmation token is used, and how the agent_token parameter relates to the token. The flow is incomplete.
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 concise, with two sentences. It front-loads the purpose and critical warning, then explains the two-step process. Minor improvement could be structured bullets or explicit parameter mapping.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain return values or the full lifecycle (e.g., what happens after token is provided). The workflow is unclear, and env_id's role is omitted. For a destructive multi-step tool, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only partially covers dry_run and implies agent_token is the confirmation token, but env_id is entirely undocumented. The mapping from agent_token to 'confirmation token' is ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Prune unused Docker images', specifying both the action (prune) and the resource (unused Docker images). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like prune_system or prune_volumes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear guidance on the two-step process: using dry_run first then confirmation token. It warns about destructiveness but does not explicitly compare to similar prune tools (e.g., prune_system) for when to choose this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the tool updates settings but does not disclose whether updates are partial or full, what happens when parameters are null, authentication requirements, or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence of 9 words, front-loading the purpose and listing the key parameters. Every word earns its place with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (4 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is mostly adequate. It could be improved by mentioning that env_id is the identifier of the environment to update and that null parameters leave existing values unchanged.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 lists three of the four properties (name, api_url, agent_token) but lacks details like format, constraints, or the meaning of the required env_id parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states the action ('Update environment settings') and lists the specific fields that can be updated ('name, API URL, or access token'), making it clear what the tool does and distinguishing it from related tools like create_environment or remove_environment.
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 updating an existing environment's settings but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when not to use it or prerequisites like the environment must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses destructive nature and dry_run safety mechanism. However, lacks details on what 'unused' means, prerequisites, or side effects (e.g., does it affect Docker daemon?). Basic transparency but incomplete.
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: two sentences with no fluff. Purpose is front-loaded, critical safety info follows. Every sentence adds value.
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 destructive nature and 3 parameters, description covers primary purpose and safety but omits parameter details and output behavior (no output schema). Environment context (env_id) and confirmation mechanism are ambiguous. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description only addresses dry_run (with usage context). env_id and agent_token are not explained; their roles are unclear. Does not compensate for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Prune unused Docker networks', specifying the verb (prune) and resource (Docker networks). Distinguishes from siblings like prune_images and prune_volumes by targeting networks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage guidance: mentions destructive nature, recommends dry_run=False for actual execution, and advises confirmation. Does not explicitly contrast with remove_network or other pruning tools, but the context of 'unused' aids selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that volumes default to False, dry_run=True previews without changes, and that flags control what gets pruned. This covers key behaviors like safety preview and default scoping, though it could mention irreversible nature or auth requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states purpose, second lists flags, third clarifies defaults and dry_run behavior.
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?
For a tool with 8 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains core functionality and defaults but omits explanation of env_id, agent_token, and return behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains the boolean flags (containers, images, volumes, etc.) and their defaults, adding context beyond the schema. However, env_id and agent_token are left unexplained, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Prune system resources for the given environment' clearly states the verb (prune) and resource (system resources in an environment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like prune_images, prune_networks, prune_volumes by being a bulk operation that selects multiple resource types via flags.
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 tells what to select via flags and mentions defaults, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs individual prune tools. It implies usage for bulk pruning, but lacks guidance on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-consuming behavior, return of operation details minus sensitive fields, and error conditions for invalid/expired tokens. This is good, though lacks mention of potential side effects (though likely none) or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose, behavior (non-consuming), return value (details or error), and error condition. No gaps are evident.
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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It identifies the parameter as a 'confirmation token', adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition. However, it does not specify token format or origin.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('check validity') and resource ('confirmation token'), and explicitly distinguishes from a consuming operation by stating 'without consuming it'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'confirm_operation'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (to check validity before consuming) by saying 'without consuming it', providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses critical behaviors: token expiration (120 seconds), hash matching for safety, and server-side resource change detection. This goes beyond simple confirmation by warning about failure conditions, ensuring the agent understands risks even without annotations.
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?
Well-structured and informative, but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value, though the example could be slightly condensed. Front-loaded with purpose, then parameter details and safety checks.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Comprehensive coverage: explains purpose, parameters, expiry, safety mechanisms, and error conditions. No output schema exists, but the description adequately specifies that the operation is executed silently on success or denied with reason on failure. No gaps for an agent to misunderstand.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: 'token' is the confirmation token from the destructive call, 'operation_hash' is optional but must match the original hash to prevent misuse. Provides concrete example showing how token could be reused maliciously without hash.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Confirm and execute a destructive operation.' It explains the role of the token and operation_hash, distinguishing this as a secondary step after a destructive tool call, unlike sibling tools that are direct actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit when-to-use: after a destructive tool that returns a token. Provides when-not: token expires after 120 seconds, operation_hash mismatch, or resource change. It implies alternatives by stating only destructive operations need this step, guiding the agent to use other tools for non-destructive actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![arcane-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeCase/arcane-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeCase/arcane-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![arcane-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeCase/arcane-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MikeCase/arcane-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MikeCase/arcane-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server