lightbulb-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation1/5
With 1240 tools, many share identical operation names across connectors (e.g., list_invoices, create_invoice). Generic descriptions like 'X connector operation Y' provide no distinguishing details, making it nearly impossible for an agent to select the correct tool without external context.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent pattern: connector_verb_noun or domain_action. Within each group, naming is uniform (e.g., clio_list_*, clio_create_*). Minor variations exist (e.g., finance_ap_invoice_intake vs finance_list_invoices), but overall the pattern is predictable.
Tool Count1/5
1240 tools is excessive for any server. The tool surface appears auto-generated from numerous connectors and domain agents, far exceeding a well-scoped set. This overwhelms agents and defeats the purpose of curated tool selection.
Completeness3/5
The vast number of tools suggests broad coverage of CRUD operations across many services. However, the generic pass-through design means depth depends on underlying APIs, and some connectors may have obvious gaps (e.g., missing delete operations). Completeness is hard to assess due to lack of detailed descriptions.
Average 2.5/5 across 1012 of 1240 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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 Apache 2.0.
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?
The description provides no behavioral details (e.g., permissions, idempotency, side effects). With no annotations, the burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to disclose any traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is not concise; it simply restates the name and routing details. It lacks substance, making it unhelpful 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 zero schema description coverage and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide any context for correct tool selection or 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 single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not state what the tool does beyond being a Slack connector operation 'pins_add'. It lacks a specific verb and resource, making it impossible to understand its purpose without external knowledge.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_pins_remove, 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.
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 behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive (reverting a timesheet likely modifies or deletes data) or if it requires specific permissions. The routing detail is not behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description contains three sentences, but the first two are purely routing boilerplate that does not aid tool understanding. The third sentence is a generic placeholder. The description is under-specified and wastes space on non-essential 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 the complexity of a payroll revert operation and the lack of structured annotations or schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's purpose, behavior, or parameters, leaving an AI agent without sufficient information for correct selection and 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 only states that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string, without specifying what fields or values are expected. This provides no meaningful guidance beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not state what the tool does; it only repeats the name and provides routing information. It fails to specify that it reverts a payroll timesheet, which is essential for distinguishing it from siblings like xero_approve_payroll_au_timesheet.
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., xero_create_payroll_au_timesheet, xero_approve_payroll_au_timesheet). The description omits any context about prerequisites or intended use cases.
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 provided, and description only mentions routing details. No disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but includes unnecessary routing information. Could be more concise and directly state the tool's purpose.
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 it is a mutation tool with no annotations, the description should explain return values, side effects, and required permissions. None provided.
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?
Description adds no meaningful information beyond input schema. 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' essentially repeats the schema. Does not explain expected structure or keys.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description only restates the tool name as 'Github connector operation update_branch_protection' without explaining what updating branch protection entails. It is a tautology.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_get_branch_protection or github_create_ruleset. No prerequisites or permissions mentioned.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or return behavior. It only describes routing details that are irrelevant to an AI agent's 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but fails to convey essential information. The routing details and JWT/scope context are not useful for tool selection. It is under-specified rather than 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?
Despite having an output schema (indicated by context), the description gives no hint of the return value or purpose. For a tool that likely returns a department ID, the description is completely incomplete. It does not help an agent understand what the tool accomplishes.
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 meaningful information about the 'arguments' parameter beyond the schema. It simply states 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining what arguments are expected or how they affect behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely repeats the tool name ('default_department_id') without specifying any action or purpose. It does not state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve, set, or list default department IDs). The verb and resource are absent, making it a tautology.
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., greenhouse_default_office_id or other Greenhouse tools). It does not mention any context, prerequisites, 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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only states routing through an API endpoint without any details on authentication, rate limits, side effects, or success/failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not effectively concise; it omits essential information. Every sentence is generic and does not earn its place by adding helpful 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides minimal context about the tool's purpose, input structure, or behavior. It is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is entirely generic and adds no meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to define required keys or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'list_team_channels' without specifying what a team channel is or what exactly is listed. It offers no differentiation from sibling tools like 'microsoft_list_channel_messages' or 'microsoft_list_chats'.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for appropriate use.
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 present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) but not the tool's effect, required permissions, or side effects. The agent has no insight into what 'create' entails.
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 not effectively concise—it wastes space on routing info that is irrelevant to tool selection. It under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters, making it unhelpful.
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 create operation in Monday.com, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the target board, parent item, required column values, or output format. Despite having an output schema, the description adds no context about 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning to the single parameter 'arguments'. It only states it is a JSON string but does not hint at expected structure (e.g., board_id, parent_item_id, column values). This fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only repeats the tool's name ('Monday connector operation create_subitem') without explaining what a subitem is or what creating one entails. It fails to specify the resource (e.g., under which board or item) or any distinguishing features from sibling tools like monday_create_item.
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 such as monday_create_item, monday_create_update, or monday_list_subitems. The description offers no context for selection.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication, which are irrelevant to the tool's core behavior. It does not describe whether the operation is a read, write, or what data is involved.
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 wastes space on generic routing details that apply to all Monday tools. It lacks useful information, making its brevity a drawback rather than an asset.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values. The agent cannot infer the tool's purpose or how to invoke it correctly. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with one critical parameter and no schema coverage.
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 single parameter 'arguments' has no schema documentation (0% coverage). The description only says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' providing no structure or expected keys. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Monday connector operation' without specifying what the tool actually does. It fails to indicate that it likely retrieves or sets the offboarding template board ID, providing no verb-resource pair or functional context.
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 offered on when to use this tool, what it returns, or alternatives. Sibling tools clearly perform different Monday operations, but this description gives no differentiation.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not explain what happens during invocation, required permissions, effects on pages, or any side effects. It's completely 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 short but lacks substantive content. It is not concise in a meaningful way because it omits essential information. The structure is minimal but acceptable.
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 and its many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose or behavior, making it impossible for an AI agent to select or invoke it 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which simply repeats the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning or format guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely repeats the tool name and mentions routing/AWS details but never states what the tool actually does. It fails to convey that this is a bulk update operation for Notion pages.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like notion_update_page or notion_bulk_property_update. The description provides no context for selection among numerous Notion siblings.
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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. However, it only describes routing and argument format, with no mention of what the tool returns, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior upload session), or any other behavioral aspects.
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 short, its brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It is not concise in a helpful way; it omits critical details that an agent needs to use the tool correctly.
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 (many sibling Notion tools) and lack of annotations or output schema details, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it relates to the file upload workflow, or any 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' has a default of '{}' but no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds minimal meaning by stating it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but fails to specify expected keys, format, or any semantics beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name and mentions it is a 'Notion connector operation' without specifying what the operation actually does. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like notion_create_file_upload or notion_list_file_uploads, leaving the agent unable to determine its purpose.
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 such as notion_create_file_upload or notion_send_file_upload. The description lacks any contextual cues for appropriate use.
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 discloses only infrastructure routing and authentication scope, which is generic. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but adds no value.
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 wastes space on generic routing information. It is under-specified, missing crucial functional details. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to explain the tool's core purpose and necessary parameters. For a simple list operation, it is critically incomplete.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no details are given about its expected contents (e.g., required keys like page_id). Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name ('list_comments') without specifying what the tool does, such as listing comments on a Notion page or block. It lacks a verb-resource pair and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like notion_get_comment or notion_create_comment.
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 alternative tools (e.g., notion_get_comment for a single comment). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.
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?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states routing and authentication boilerplate, which is generic and not specific to this operation. There is no information about side effects (e.g., read-only vs destructive), pagination, rate limits, or return value structure.
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 wastes space on generic routing details that likely apply to all platform tools. It fails to front-load the core purpose. Every sentence should add value, but none explain the tool's actual function.
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?
Despite having an output schema (which could compensate for missing description), the description does not leverage this. It omits critical context: what exactly does listing entail? What filters or scoping does the 'arguments' parameter support? The tool's low parameter count and generic schema would benefit from a richer description, but none is provided.
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 only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaning beyond the schema. The agent receives no hints on what keys, constraints, or examples to use in the JSON string, making parameter usage entirely opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name 'list_file_uploads' and provides routing details. It does not define what is being listed (e.g., uploads from a page or workspace) or how it differs from related notions tools like notion_get_file_upload or notion_send_file_upload. The purpose is tautological and uninformative.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, context for invocation, or exclusionary advice. The entire section is missing, leaving the agent without decision support.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the operation is destructive, irreversible, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The generic routing info does not compensate.
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 but at the expense of completeness. It lacks essential content, making it under-specified rather than 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about the operation's purpose, input requirements, or expected outcomes. It is completely inadequate for a tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a JSON string of arguments, but no details on valid keys, structure, or defaults are given. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely states the tool's name and routing details, failing to explain what updating database properties actually means. It does not specify whether it modifies schema, fields, or other attributes, making it a tautology of the 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 siblings like notion_update_database or notion_bulk_property_update. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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. Description lacks any behavioral information such as side effects, idempotency, permissions required, or rate limits. The generic routing note adds no behavioral insight.
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, but this is underspecification rather than conciseness. It lacks substantive content to earn its place.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is too vague to be complete. No information about return values, error conditions, or how to interpret the output is provided. The tool is essentially opaque.
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 only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but provides no details on valid keys, types, or examples. This is insufficient for an agent to construct correct input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description merely restates the tool name and provides a routing detail. It does not specify what 'update_data_source_properties' actually does, what a data source is, or what properties can be updated. This is a tautology.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'notion_create_data_source' or 'notion_update_data_source'. No context about prerequisites or situations where this tool is appropriate.
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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and a generic 'arguments' parameter, giving no information about what the tool does, side effects, or expected behavior. The agent has no way to infer that this is a read-only status check.
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 not concisely informative. It wastes space on redundant routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') while omitting essential purpose and usage details. It is under-specified rather than 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 lack of annotations, minimal schema coverage, and no output schema description, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain the relationship to other bulk operations or what the status response contains.
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 only parameter is 'arguments' (a JSON string). The description says it contains 'arguments for the connector operation' but provides no details on its structure or required fields. With 0% schema coverage and no elaboration in the description, the agent cannot properly construct the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Salesforce connector operation `bulk_query_status`') without explaining what the tool does. It fails to specify that it checks the status of a Salesforce bulk query job, leaving the agent without a clear purpose.
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. Sibling tools like 'salesforce_bulk_query_create' and 'salesforce_bulk_query_results' exist, but the description does not differentiate them or explain the workflow 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, auth requirements). Only routing details are provided.
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 wastes space on trivial routing info. It lacks front-loaded purpose and does not earn its sentences with useful 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 zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description fails to compensate. Although an output schema exists, the description does not help the agent understand the tool's function or return value.
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 only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is circular and adds no meaning. The parameter 'arguments' is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not state what the tool does; it merely restates the name ('Slack connector operation') and provides routing info. The verb and resource are missing, making the purpose unclear.
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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other Slack tools like slack_access_canvas). The description lacks any context for selection.
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 (e.g., read-only, permissions needed, side effects). It only mentions routing details, which do not help the agent understand what the tool does.
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 lacks essential content. Conciseness should be efficient communication, but here it omits critical information, making it under-specified for effective use.
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, zero parameter description coverage, and an output schema not detailed, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does or how to invoke it 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 coverage for the single parameter 'arguments' is 0%, and the description only restates 'JSON string of arguments' without explaining the expected structure or required fields. This adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description repeats the tool name 'usergroups_users_list' without stating its purpose. It does not specify that the tool lists users in a Slack usergroup, making it a tautology.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_list_users or slack_usergroups_list. The description offers no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no information about side effects, required permissions, or behavioral traits of the operation.
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 brief, the description contains irrelevant infrastructure details (routing through /api/tools/invoke) and omits essential functional information, making it unhelpful.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain the tool's purpose, correct usage, or input format, leaving the agent without enough context to use it 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' has zero schema description coverage, and the description adds no context about what values it should contain or how to structure the JSON string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely repeats the tool name ('Slack connector operation views_open') and does not explain what the tool does. It fails to distinguish it from similar sibling tools like slack_open_modal.
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. The description only mentions routing details, which are irrelevant for usage decisions.
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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only provides routing infrastructure details (JWT, tenant, scope) but does not state whether the operation creates, updates, or destroys views, nor any side effects or authorization needs.
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 wastes space on routing details (tool path, JWT scope) that are irrelevant to an agent deciding when to use the tool. It lacks a concise summary of functionality.
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's complexity as a Slack view update operation, the description is wholly inadequate. It omits return value information (despite an output schema existing), does not explain the structure of the 'arguments' parameter, and fails to reference any documentation or examples.
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 only parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema description coverage. The description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no semantic meaning—no hint about required fields like view_id, type, or views payload.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description only restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation `views_update`', which is a tautology. It fails to explain what the tool does, e.g., updating a Slack modal or home tab view, making it impossible to distinguish from sibling tools like slack_views_open or slack_views_publish.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is appropriate versus other Slack view 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any side effects, required permissions, or operational traits. The agent learns nothing about what happens when invoking the 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?
The description is short but wastes space on technical routing details and a redundant arguments line. It lacks essential information; brevity without substance is not helpful.
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 and minimal schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not clarify the tool's operation, inputs, outputs, or any usage constraints, making it impossible for the agent to use 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 single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no explanation of expected structure or content. The agent has no clue what to pass.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not state the tool's purpose. It only provides generic routing and invocation details, omitting that this tool creates a timesheet. The title is null, and no verb or resource is indicated.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_approve_payroll_au_timesheet or xero_list_payroll_au_timesheets. The description lacks any context for usage decisions.
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 present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or pagination. The generic routing note adds no behavioral insight.
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 includes redundant identification (e.g., 'Airwallex connector operation `list_payouts` (platform tool `airwallex.list_payouts`)') that wastes space. It is not concise; it lacks essential information while repeating obvious 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?
The description is incomplete: it does not mention what the tool returns (despite having an output schema), any filtering capabilities, or the scope of payout data. The agent cannot determine how to use this tool 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the expected structure or purpose of the arguments.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name and route ('Airwallex connector operation `list_payouts`') without specifying that it retrieves a list of payouts. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like `airwallex_list_balances` or `airwallex_list_transactions`.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
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 provided; description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., does approve_bill mutate state?), idempotency, error behavior, or required permissions. Only routing info is given.
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?
Description includes unnecessary technical routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') that could be omitted or simplified. Still relatively short but not optimally 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 complexity (write operation with undocumented arguments) and lack of annotations/output schema description, the description is severely incomplete. An output schema exists but is not described; no information about return values or potential errors.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema breakdown. Description calls it 'JSON string of arguments' but adds no meaning about what keys or values are expected. Schema coverage is 0%, and description does nothing to compensate.
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?
Description merely restates the tool name and technical routing ('Billcom connector operation approve_bill'), failing to explain what the operation does (approving a bill). It is a tautology, not a clear statement of purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like billcom_create_bill or billcom_list_bills. No 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) which is generic. No mention of read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes space on redundant routing details. Valuable content is missing, making it under-specified rather than 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 complexity of the Clio medical records domain and the existence of sibling CRUD tools, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about the purpose, required inputs, or output, despite having an output schema.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string without any explanation of its expected structure (e.g., whether it requires an ID). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful semantic insight.
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?
The description merely restates the operation name 'get_medical_records_detail' and provides generic routing info. It does not specify that this retrieves a single record detail, nor does it distinguish from siblings like clio_list_medical_records_details or clio_create_medical_records_detail.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No indication of prerequisites, context, or when to prefer this over list/update/delete 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 provided, and the description only mentions routing and scope. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination applies, or any constraints on the arguments. For a tool that takes a generic JSON string, behavioral details are critical.
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?
Very short but the first sentence is a tautology, and the routing detail is not immediately useful. Could be restructured to front-load the purpose and provide essential 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to use the arguments. For a generic connector tool, the description is severely 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with schema coverage 0%. This adds negligible semantic value; the agent has no idea what keys or values are valid.
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?
Description merely restates the tool name 'list medical records details' without specifying what specific details are included or how it differs from similar tools like clio_get_medical_records_detail.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_get_medical_records_detail or clio_create_medical_records_detail. The agent is left to infer from the name.
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 provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing documents, required permissions, or side effects. It only mentions routing details which are not behavioral.
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 not concise; it includes internal routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) that are not helpful for selecting or using the tool. It lacks 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?
Given the complexity of a document upload action and the absence of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments or what the response includes.
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 only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what properties the JSON string should contain.
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?
The description states 'upload_document' but does not specify what uploading a document means in Clio (e.g., to which matter or folder). It is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like clio_create_document or clio_upload_file.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. The only behavioral info is routing mechanism, which 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 concise but wastes space on implementation details rather than user-facing purpose. It is not effectively structured for an agent to quickly grasp functionality.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. Given the tool's likely complexity (listing top products by margin), the description is woefully incomplete.
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 semantics. It only lists 'message' and 'inputs' with no additional context over the schema. The agent cannot deduce how to use these parameters meaningfully.
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?
The description merely states 'Run the commerce domain agent action top_products_by_margin' without explaining what that action does. It does not define 'top products by margin' or distinguish this tool from sibling commerce tools like commerce_margin_analysis or commerce_product_analysis.
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 vs. alternatives. The description only covers internal routing details (dispatcher, JWT, scope) which are not helpful for tool selection.
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 present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, mutability, side effects). The only information is about routing, which does not help understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), but it lacks substance. While it is concise in length, it fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than effectively 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 lack of annotations, the 0% parameter documentation, and the vague description, the tool definition is wholly inadequate for an AI agent to understand its purpose, usage, and behavior. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing description.
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 a single parameter 'arguments' with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely repeats that it is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, adding no semantic meaning beyond the raw 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?
The description states 'list_reports' which indicates a listing operation, but it does not specify what is being listed (e.g., expense reports, approval reports) or provide any detail about the resource. It is essentially a tautology of 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. The sibling list includes related Expensify tools like expensify_list_expenses and expensify_list_policies, but the description offers no differentiation or 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, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, what it modifies, or any side effects. The description is a generic routing instruction with no behavioral detail.
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 front-loaded with the tool name, but it is not necessarily concise in a helpful way—it wastes space on routing details that could be inferred from context. However, it does not include unnecessary fluff, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a finance domain action related to capital structure and cost of capital, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, output format, or what the action accomplishes. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged, and schema coverage is 0%. Very inadequate.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names: 'message' is 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this is slightly more informative than the schema alone, it lacks details on format, constraints, or expected usage, leaving agents with insufficient understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely states it routes to a domain agent action with the tool's name, but does not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., calculate capital structure metrics, analyze cost of capital). It fails to provide a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish it from hundreds of sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 gives no context about appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Completely absent.
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, yet the description does not disclose any behavioral traits: whether it reads or writes, what side effects occur, what the output schema contains, or any permissions needed. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is not efficiently informative. It wastes space on technical routing details that are likely irrelevant to the agent's decision-making. The core function is missing, making the conciseness detrimental rather than helpful.
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 suggests a specific configuration operation and has an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, what parameters the JSON should contain, or what the output signifies, leaving the agent without enough context to use it 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description merely states that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string. It provides no information about accepted keys, structure, or examples, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid input.
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?
The description only restates the tool name and provides technical routing information, but fails to explain what the tool actually does (e.g., get or set the default base branch for pull requests). The purpose is unclear and leaves the agent guessing.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_default_org or github_default_repo. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or suitable scenarios.
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?
Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication, omitting whether the tool reads or writes, whether it is destructive, rate limits, 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 contains some redundancy (repeating the full tool path and routing details). It could be more concise, but it is not overly long.
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's complexity and numerous siblings, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, arguments, or return value (despite an output schema existing).
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail about the expected shape or keys of the JSON string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Github connector operation default_review_required_teams') without specifying what the operation does. It fails to define a clear verb+resource, making it a tautology.
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, such as other GitHub configuration tools (e.g., github_default_org, github_default_repo). The description offers no context for selection.
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. Description only mentions routing and authentication scope but fails to disclose read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. No behavioral traits beyond the generic request context.
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?
Very short but wastes space on tautological name repetition and routing details. Lacks substantive information. Every sentence does not earn its place.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits any explanation of what the tool does. A complete description would clarify that it retrieves details of a specific GitHub workflow run. The current description is 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?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description notes 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning but does not specify expected keys or structure for the JSON string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description merely restates the tool name and platform path. Does not specify what a workflow run is or what the tool retrieves. No verb or resource clarification.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like github_list_workflow_runs or github_get_workflow_run_logs. No context provided.
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 behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only or mutates state. The description focuses on routing and argument format, not on 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 description is under-specified and fails to concisely convey the tool's purpose. It includes irrelevant routing details that do not help the agent understand when or how to use the tool. The description should be replaced with a clear, front-loaded statement of functionality.
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?
Despite having an output schema (which is not referenced), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, input requirements, or output, making it nearly impossible for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description coverage (0%). The description does not explain what keys or values are expected inside this JSON, leaving the agent to guess the required structure for assigning an issue.
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?
The name 'jira_assign_issue' suggests assigning an issue, but the description only states it's a 'connector operation' and mentions routing details. It does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., assign a Jira issue to a user) or differentiate it from sibling tools like jira_create_issue or jira_update_issue.
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 such as jira_transition_issue or jira_update_issue. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations to avoid.
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 but only provides routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) without disclosing behavioral traits like required permissions, idempotency, or side effects of creating a rule.
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 wastes space on tautological routing info and lacks substantive guidance. It is under-specified rather than 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. For a creation operation, this leaves agents guessing about expected outcomes like rule ID.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described only as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no semantic meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to specify internal structure or required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name and platform identifier, offering no explanation of what creating an automation rule entails. It fails to distinguish from siblings like jira_create_issue or jira_create_sprint.
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 such as jira_list_automation_rules or jira_delete_automation_rule. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or best practices.
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, so the description must bear full burden. It mentions routing and scope but provides no information on whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The behavior is completely 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 wastes words by repeating the tool name and platform reference. The three sentences could be condensed into one without loss of information. It is not optimally 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?
The tool has a generic parameter and no annotation support. The description is incomplete: it does not explain the return value (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, or how to construct arguments. An agent cannot use this tool correctly based on this description.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should specify expected keys or structure, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Jira connector operation `default_board_id`') without specifying what the tool does. It does not indicate that it retrieves the default board ID, leaving the agent without a clear purpose.
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 alternative Jira tools. With many sibling Jira tools, the lack of differentiation makes it impossible for the agent to decide when to invoke this one.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) and omits critical traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, return format, or pagination. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but poorly structured: the routing detail is placed before the actual purpose, and the parameter explanation is vague. It does not front-load the most critical information (what the tool does).
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?
Despite having an output schema (per context signals), the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of project objects with keys, names). The routing and parameter info are insufficient for an agent to use the tool 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?
The schema has 0% coverage, and the description adds only 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is generic and does not specify the arguments' structure or possible values (e.g., project keys, filters). It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Jira connector operation `list_projects`') without explicitly stating that it lists all Jira projects. It fails to define the tool's core functionality clearly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_list_issue_types or jira_list_users. No context is provided for appropriate usage.
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?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details, omitting side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is synchronous. The agent cannot anticipate 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but includes irrelevant routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that may not aid tool selection. The first sentence is minimal, and every word does not earn its place relative to agent needs.
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 a potentially complex operation (board duplication) and no annotations or output schema details in the description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain inputs, outputs, or behavior, leaving the agent unable to use it 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify what keys the JSON should contain.
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?
The description states it is a 'duplicate_board' operation but never explains what duplication entails (e.g., copies a Monday.com board). It relies solely on the tool name, which is vague, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like monday_archive_board or monday_create_board.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where duplication is appropriate.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only provides routing details and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what operations it performs, or any side effects. The behavioral impact is completely 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 very short (3 sentences), but it omits critical functional information. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to earn its place by being helpful.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and an output schema existing, the description lacks essential context such as what 'docs' are, how results are returned, and any filtering capabilities. It is incomplete for an agent to use 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described only as a JSON string, with no explanation of the expected structure or required fields. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the 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?
The description repeats the tool name and mentions it's a Monday connector operation, but fails to specify what 'docs' refers to. Given sibling tools like monday_list_boards and monday_list_items, the type of document is ambiguous. The description does not distinguish it from other list operations.
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 like monday_list_boards or monday_list_items. There is no mention of 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.
Behavior1/5
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 mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, has pagination, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description has three sentences, but the first restates the name, the second gives routing context, and the last is vague. It is not effectively concise; it wastes space on routing details and lacks substantive 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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns. It misses key context for a list operation, such as whether it returns all workspaces, pagination, or filtering capabilities.
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 single parameter `arguments` is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no further explanation, example, or format guidance. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.
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?
The description states it is a 'Monday connector operation `list_workspaces`' but does not explicitly say it lists workspaces. The name implies the purpose, but the description is vague and does not clarify what the tool does in plain terms.
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 similar monday_list_* tools. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing details and parameter format, but fails to describe the mutation behavior, required permissions, side effects, or return value expectations.
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 wastes space on generic routing information that is likely common to all connector tools. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking critical usage 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments JSON, what fields are updatable, or what the output contains, 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining what keys/values are expected or providing examples. This adds almost no semantic value.
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?
The description states it is an 'update_item' operation for Monday, but does not specify what fields can be updated or how it differs from other Monday tools like monday_change_column_value. It essentially restates the name without adding specific verb+resource clarity.
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. The description lacks any context for when an agent should choose update_item over other Monday mutation 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and that arguments is a JSON string, but fails to state whether the tool is destructive, what side effects occur, authentication requirements, or how the connector operation behaves.
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 not concise; it is under-specified and omits essential details. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the routing info is likely generic. Every sentence should earn its place, but here they fail to add substantive 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?
Given the tool's complexity (a create operation with a single JSON argument) and the existence of an output schema, the description still lacks critical context such as typical use cases, required fields, or behavior. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke 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 only repeats that the arguments parameter is a JSON string for the connector operation. It provides no detail on expected keys, constraints, examples, or required fields. This does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Myob connector operation create_bill') and adds routing details, but does not explain what a bill is in MYOB or how this tool differs from similar sibling tools like xero_create_bill or billcom_create_bill. The purpose remains vague.
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, no prerequisites, context, or limitations are mentioned. The agent is left without any decision criteria.
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 the full burden. It only mentions the routing path and that arguments are a JSON string, but discloses no behavioral traits such as what the operation does, side effects, permissions, or return behavior. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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, but this is because it omits almost all useful information. It is not appropriately sized; it prioritizes brevity over 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 the complexity of a notion connector operation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool retrieves, how to construct the arguments, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to specify the expected contents of the JSON, such as the required page_id.
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?
The description only states 'Notion connector operation get_page' and the routing path, which is essentially a tautology. It does not explain what the tool does (e.g., retrieve a page's content or metadata), and it fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like notion_get_page_markdown or notion_get_block.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, 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 present, and the description provides no behavioral information beyond routing details. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it sacrifices substance. It lacks any meaningful content beyond a generic routing note and a parameter placeholder, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient communication.
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 Notion views and the existence of multiple sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values (despite an output schema existing), how to specify which view, or any example usage. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based solely on the provided 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 single parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It provides no information on what keys or values are expected, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid invocation.
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?
The description states it is a 'get_view' operation but does not explain what a view is in Notion or what retrieving a view entails. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like notion_list_views, notion_query_view, or notion_update_view, leaving the agent unclear about when to use this specific tool.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide between this and other view-related tools without external knowledge.
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 behavioral details are provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or its authentication requirements beyond generic routing. Annotations are absent, so the description fails to fill the gap.
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 overly sparse, omitting essential information like input structure and behavior. It front-loads the name but fails to provide value beyond that.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely requires specifying a block ID. It does not explain input arguments, expected behavior, or error conditions, 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments' with no clarification of expected keys (e.g., block_id). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the 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?
The description merely restates the tool name and technical routing details without explaining what listing block children means or what the tool accomplishes. It provides no practical clarity beyond the name itself.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternative Notion tools like notion_get_block or notion_list_comments. The description lacks any context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only includes routing information (JWT, tenant, scope). It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the page during replacement. The output schema is not described.
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 wastes space on routing details that are likely automated. It lacks essential information, making it under-specified rather than 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an undescribed output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not equip the 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to specify expected keys (e.g., page_id, markdown content) or their formats, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name ('replace_page_markdown') without specifying what it does. It does not mention the verb or resource (e.g., replacing markdown content of a Notion page), making it a tautology.
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 sibling tools like notion_get_page_markdown, notion_update_page_markdown, or notion_create_page. There is no 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing. It discloses no behavioral traits such as idempotency, overwrite behavior, required authorization, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes space on routing details that are not actionable. It does not concisely convey essential information, and every sentence does not earn its place.
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 Notion update page operation, the description is completely inadequate. It omits what the 'arguments' JSON should contain, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments' with no explanation of expected keys (e.g., page_id, properties). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful guidance beyond the 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?
The description merely restates the name as 'Notion connector operation `update_page`' and provides routing info. It does not specify what updating a page entails (e.g., modifying properties, content) and fails to distinguish from siblings like notion_update_page_markdown or notion_update_block.
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. Given numerous sibling Notion update tools, the description offers no context for selection.
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 provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or required prior steps. The agent is left without critical context.
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 omits essential details. It is under-specified rather than concise; brevity here sacrifices 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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It lacks any explanation of prerequisites, arguments, 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no description of its structure. Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.
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?
The description only states 'Slack connector operation' without specifying the action. The name suggests completing an external upload, but the description does not clarify the verb or resource meaningfully.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_files_get_upload_url_external or slack_files_delete. 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the agent has no insight into the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is not concise in a helpful way—it omits essential information and fails to front-load a clear purpose. It is under-specified rather than efficiently written.
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 details, and any behavioral or usage context, the description is entirely inadequate for the agent to properly understand and use this 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema coverage. The description provides no explanation of what should be included in the JSON, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name without explaining what 'files_get_upload_url_external' actually does. It fails to specify the verb or resource, providing no clarity beyond the name itself.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or prerequisites.
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 behavioral traits are disclosed. The description does not indicate whether this is a read operation, what permissions are needed, or what the expected output contains. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide any 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but lacks meaningful content. It is under-specified rather than purposefully concise, with no front-loading of 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's core function, parameters, or constraints. It is completely inadequate for enabling correct selection and 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' but no details are given about what keys or values are expected. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('get_thread_replies') without elaborating on what retrieving thread replies means. It does not specify that this tool retrieves messages that are replies to a parent message in a Slack thread, leaving its purpose vague.
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 like slack_get_channel_history or slack_search_messages. The description only covers invocation routing, not 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 provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., permissions needed, whether it sends notifications, side effects). The description is purely technical.
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 it is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes space on routing info instead of clarifying the tool's function. Every sentence should earn its place, and these do not.
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 and the minimal schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what arguments are needed (e.g., user ID, channel ID), the outcome of the operation, or any constraints.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as a JSON string for the connector operation, adding no meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not compensate by explaining what keys or values are expected.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('Slack connector operation invite_to_channel') without explaining that it invites a user to a channel. Adding technical routing details does not clarify the core purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_join_channel or other Slack channel management 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant scope) but nothing about side effects, permissions, return values, or safety characteristics. The agent gets no behavioral insight.
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 wastes space on low-value routing details upfront. It does not front-load the core purpose and includes syllables that earn their place.
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's complexity (a simple Slack DM opener) and the existence of output schema, the description fails to provide any essential context. It does not differentiate from siblings or explain return values, 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is redundant with the schema and adds no meaning. The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify what keys or values the JSON should contain.
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?
The description says 'Slack connector operation `open_dm`' but does not explain what opening a DM means in Slack. The purpose is vague; it relies solely on the tool name to hint at functionality, lacking a clear verb and resource description.
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 like slack_post_message or slack_create_channel. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits: permissions required, side effects, error behavior, or return value. The description merely provides infrastructure routing details.
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 wastes space on routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') instead of front-loading the tool's core function. It is underspecified and not efficient.
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 scheduling a Slack message and the absence of annotations or output schema details, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no way to understand how to use this tool 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?
The input schema has one parameter 'arguments' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds only 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which does not explain what valid arguments are or their structure. No added semantic value beyond the 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?
The description states 'Slack connector operation `schedule_message`' but does not explain what scheduling a message entails. It fails to distinguish from similar tools like `slack_post_message` which sends immediately. The routing details are irrelevant to purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `slack_post_message` or `slack_delete_scheduled_message`. No mention of 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.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permission requirements, message ownership, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes unnecessary routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke ...') that do not help the agent. It wastes space on information unlikely to aid 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 tool has an output schema and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does in Slack terms, leaving the agent with no actionable 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fails to specify expected JSON keys or values.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation update_message', which is tautological. It does not specify what updating a message entails (e.g., text, attachments) or distinguish it from other Slack tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_post_message or slack_delete_message. The description provides no context for selection.
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 does not disclose whether the tool changes the caller's own presence or someone else's, whether it is idempotent, or any side effects. This is a critical gap 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?
The description is short but includes irrelevant routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that do not help an agent decide when to use the tool. It is not optimally concise for decision-making.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to indicate what the tool returns or any preconditions. With no annotations and a single parameter, the description leaves the agent completely uninformed about the tool's 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which merely echoes the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful guidance on how to structure the arguments.
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?
The description only restates the tool's name and indicates it's a Slack connector operation. It does not clarify what 'set presence' means (e.g., set status to away or active) or specify the resource being modified.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives or context distinguishing it from sibling Slack tools like slack_set_channel_purpose or slack_users_info.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing and argument format. No side effects, auth needs, rate limits, or return values are described. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.
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 but lacks substance. Two of three sentences are redundant or about routing. It is 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 complexity (connector operation with a single parameter and output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, input semantics, output, or relationship to 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%. The description merely states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no meaningful detail about the parameter's structure or allowed keys.
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?
The description only states 'Smokeball connector operation create_file_upload' and mentions routing. It fails to explain what the tool accomplishes, e.g., whether it uploads a file, creates an upload record, or initiates a process. Compared to sibling tools like smokeball_create_contact, the purpose is vague.
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., smokeball_get_file_upload_url, other create tools). The description gives no context for usage decisions.
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?
Without any annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only or destructive). It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), which are not behavioral. No insight into side effects or permissions.
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 technically concise, the description is under-specified. It wastes its few sentences on routing details rather than explaining the tool's core purpose, making it ineffective despite its 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 existence of an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it fails to explain what the tool actually lists (e.g., Smokeball document layouts). It leaves an AI agent without enough context to know when and why to invoke this 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is a generic JSON string with no description in the schema or the tool description. The description just says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no meaningful semantic beyond the schema's type and default value.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Smokeball connector operation list_layouts' without specifying what layouts are or what listing them entails. It provides no concrete verb or resource, making it vague and tautological.
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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like smokeball_get_layout, smokeball_create_layout, or smokeball_update_layout. It fails to differentiate its functionality.
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 behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, rate limits). The routing info is generic and does not help the agent understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks essential detail; it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence is either generic (routing info) or tautological (restating 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?
Given no annotations and a single parameter with no description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain input format, output schema (though one exists), or usage scenarios, leaving the agent without critical 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful semantics. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what arguments are valid or how to use them.
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?
The description only restates the tool name as 'Square connector operation list_refunds' and adds generic routing info. It does not specify what listing refunds entails (e.g., scope, filtering) or distinguish from sibling tools like square_list_payments or square_create_refund.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about the intended use case or prerequisites.
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 behavioral traits such as read-only nature, destructive potential, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The agent is left unaware of the tool's safety profile.
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 wastes space repeating the tool name and platform designation. The 'Routes through' line is likely irrelevant for an agent. It lacks clear structure and does not front-load critical purpose 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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description should explain what the report contains and how it behaves. Instead, it omits all substantive context, leaving the agent without sufficient information to invoke it 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is tautological and adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain expected JSON structure or provide examples.
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?
The description provides the tool name ('aged_receivable_report') and states it's a Xero connector operation, but fails to explain what this report does (e.g., lists overdue customer invoices). It does not distinguish it from sibling 'xero_aged_payable_report', leaving ambiguity about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, what prerequisites are needed, or how it differs from alternatives like 'xero_aged_payable_report' or other Xero report tools. The description offers no decision-making support.
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 provided. Description lacks behavioral details such as destructiveness, authentication requirements, or side effects. For a delete operation, one would expect a warning about irreversibility or required permissions, but none are given.
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?
Description is short but contains boilerplate routing info and lacks substantive content. While concise, it fails to convey the tool's core purpose or parameters effectively.
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's delete nature and single parameter, the description is severely incomplete. Missing details on what the tool does, required arguments, output structure, and usage context. An output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 detail on the 'arguments' parameter beyond being a JSON string. No hint about required fields (e.g., feed connection ID) or format, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
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?
Description merely states 'delete_feed_connection' operation without explaining what deleting a feed connection entails. It relies on the tool name to convey purpose, which is insufficient for an AI agent. No explicit verb or resource description beyond the operation 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_create_feed_connection or xero_list_feed_connections. No prerequisites, conditions, 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?
The description mentions routing through JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is a minor behavioral detail. However, it discloses nothing about the operation being read-only, required permissions, or potential side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but contains redundant routing information that likely applies to all Xero tools. It wastes space without adding tool-specific value. A more focused description would state what the tool gets.
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?
Despite the simplicity of a get operation, the description is completely inadequate. It does not specify the return value, required arguments, or how it differs from related tools. An agent cannot use this tool correctly based on this description.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema coverage, the description must provide detail on expected keys (e.g., asset ID), but it does not, making the parameter effectively opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation `get_asset`' without explaining what an asset is in Xero context or what the tool does. It fails to specify that it retrieves a specific fixed asset, which is a critical omission.
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 its siblings, such as `xero_list_assets` for listing assets. The description does not mention 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but contains mostly procedural routing details that are not helpful for an agent. It is under-specified rather than efficiently 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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description does not mention what data is returned. For a payroll leave balance listing tool, this is critically incomplete.
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 only states the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string, adding no information about expected keys, valid values, or constraints.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name and provides routing info, but fails to explain what listing leave balances means. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_payroll_au_employees.
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 on when or why to use this tool. The description focuses on technical routing rather than usage context or alternatives.
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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior, but it only mentions routing through `/api/tools/invoke`. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects. The JWT/tenant/company scope is generic boilerplate.
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 poorly structured, mixing a technical routing note with a terse parameter line. It is underspecified rather than concise, 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no information about return values or behavior. It is incomplete for a tool with one parameter and no parameter descriptions, offering virtually no actionable 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which merely repeats the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what keys are expected, but it adds no semantic value.
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?
The description merely states the tool name and routing details, without explicitly stating that it lists Xero payroll AU timesheets. It adds no value beyond the name and fails to distinguish from siblings like xero_list_payroll_au_employees.
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 such as xero_approve_payroll_au_timesheet or xero_create_payroll_au_timesheet. The description offers no context for usage.
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. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, has rate limits, or what side effects (if any) occur. The technical routing detail ('/api/tools/invoke') does not compensate for missing 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks substance. It is minimally concise but fails to provide necessary details, making it 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. With no annotations and only one parameter without schema coverage, the agent cannot determine how to invoke the tool correctly or what to expect from the response.
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 only parameter is a JSON string 'arguments' with schema coverage 0%. The description does not explain how to construct this JSON (e.g., what fields like 'Status', 'DateFrom', 'Page' are available). The agent is left entirely without guidance on valid inputs.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('list_quotes') and notes it is a Xero connector operation, but does not explain what listing quotes entails (e.g., whether it returns all quotes, supports filters, or pagination). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like xero_list_invoices or xero_create_quote.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or scenarios where other Xero tools might be more appropriate.
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, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states routing and authentication scopes, which are generic. There is no information about side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what the update actually does to the receipt.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three sentences, but it lacks substantive content. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative; it fails to convey essential details in a compact manner.
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?
Despite having an output schema mentioned in context signals, the description does not refer to it or explain what the tool returns. It also omits any context about the receipt object, field restrictions, or how to identify which receipt to update.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description fails to compensate by listing expected keys or structure.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('update_receipt') without specifying what a receipt is in Xero context or what updating it entails. It lacks a clear verb+resource explanation that distinguishes it from create or list operations.
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 given on when to use this tool over alternatives like xero_create_receipt or xero_list_receipts. There is no mention of prerequisites, required state, or when an update is appropriate.
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 whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. Essential behavioral traits for a list operation (e.g., return format, pagination) 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but prioritizes routing details over core purpose. It lacks essential information about tool functionality, making it insufficient rather than 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide a clear purpose or parameter semantics. For a low-complexity tool, the description is critically incomplete and does not enable correct tool selection or 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments, which adds minimal insight. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should detail expected fields (e.g., filters, pagination) but does not, leaving the agent underinformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely repeats the tool name 'list_users' without specifying what it does, such as retrieving a list of users from Clio. It does not differentiate from sibling list tools like clio_list_activities or clio_list_bills.
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 routing and authentication context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_get_user or other list 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool updates a damage and routes through a specific API, but offers no information on side effects, authorization needs, idempotency, or the structure of the arguments JSON. This is severely lacking.
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 includes extraneous routing details that are unlikely to help an agent. It fails to include essential operational details, making it under-specified rather than 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's purpose (updating a damage record) and the lack of annotations or observable output schema details (despite having one), the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what the arguments JSON should contain, what the update does, or what the output looks like.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description or format guidance. The description adds zero meaning beyond what the input schema provides, leaving the agent entirely in the dark about how to construct valid input.
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?
The description effectively restates the tool name as 'update_damage' without providing specifics on what updating a damage entails, such as which fields or attributes can be modified. It does not differentiate this from sibling tools like clio_create_damage or clio_delete_damage.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would warrant an update operation over a create or delete.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are required, or what happens on failure or missing records.
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 wastes space on generic routing information that likely applies to all clio tools. The lack of front-loaded actionable content makes it inefficient for an agent to parse.
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 only one parameter and no annotations, the description should at least outline the expected JSON structure or link to documentation. It fails to provide sufficient information for correct invocation, despite having an output schema (not shown).
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide expected keys or structure but does not.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('Clio connector operation `update_medical_record`') without explaining what updating a medical record entails. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like `clio_update_medical_records_detail` or `clio_update_medical_bill`, leaving the agent without a clear verb+resource definition.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It omits prerequisites, context, and any conditions that would inform tool selection among the many clio update 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?
The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, pagination, or rate limits. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to provide substantial behavioral detail.
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?
Short but not concise in a helpful way. It under-specifies the tool's purpose and parameters. Every sentence adds little value, missing critical 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?
Despite an existing output schema, the description offers no context about what policies are, how they relate to other Expensify tools, or how to interpret results. Completely inadequate for a tool with an output schema and sibling tools.
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 only repeats the parameter name 'arguments' as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage and no enumeration of expected keys or valid values, the agent must guess the format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely repeats the tool name ('Expensify connector operation list_policies') without stating that it lists policies or what a policy represents. It is essentially a tautology, providing no meaningful purpose beyond the 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like expensify_list_expenses or expensify_list_reports. No context on prerequisites, limitations, 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but says nothing about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens during execution.
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 but fails to convey essential purpose and usage. It is under-specified rather than elegantly 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?
Despite having an output schema (which could reduce need to explain returns), the description omits fundamental information about what the tool does and how to use it effectively. The context is completely inadequate for a tool with many closely related siblings.
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 two parameters (`message` and `inputs`) have no schema descriptions and the tool description adds no meaning beyond their names. The free-text `message` and JSON `inputs` are left completely undefined.
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?
The description only says 'Run the finance domain agent action `finance_peer_valuation_multiples`' without explaining what peer valuation multiples are or what the tool actually computes. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like `finance_private_company_valuation` or `finance_growth_equity_valuation`.
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 any context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. However, it only mentions routing infrastructure (JWT, tenant, company scope) without any information about whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, rate-limited, or what happens on failure.
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 wastes space on technical routing details that are likely irrelevant for tool selection. Every sentence should add value, and here both sentences are either tautological or extraneous.
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 and output schema description, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how to form the arguments, what labels can be added, or any expected behavior. A mutation tool with zero annotation coverage needs significantly more 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%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It simply restates that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string, without describing what keys or values are expected. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name in a technical format ('Github connector operation add_labels_to_issue'), adding no new information about what the tool does. This is essentially a tautology, similar to the 'Process' calibration example. The name itself is clear, but the description fails to articulate the purpose beyond the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_remove_label_from_issue or other GitHub issue operations. The description gives no context about typical use cases or prerequisites.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or idempotency. With no annotations provided, the description should cover these, but it only mentions routing details and leaves the operation's behavior entirely 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?
While short, the description is under-specified and does not earn its place; it omits critical information about what the tool does and how to invoke it correctly.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about the tool's purpose, behavior, and parameter details, making it insufficient for an agent to understand and 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to specify the expected structure or keys within the JSON.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name and does not explicitly state that it links a GitHub PR to a Jira issue. The purpose is only implied by the name, offering no additional clarity beyond what the name suggests.
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. Sibling tools include many other GitHub operations, but the description lacks any differentiation or 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, side effects, or what the operation actually does (e.g., returns a diff).
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 wastes space on routing details (e.g., 'Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT...') that are irrelevant for tool selection. It lacks essential operational 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides no information about return values or behavior. For a tool comparing commits, critical context like comparison scope, format of results, and limitations is absent.
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 one parameter 'arguments' (string) with 0% description coverage. The description merely states it's a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no meaningful semantics beyond the schema type.
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?
The description mentions it's a 'compare_commits' operation but never explains what comparing commits entails (e.g., comparing two branches or commits). It focuses on routing details, leaving the core purpose unclear.
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 github_list_commits or github_get_branch. The description does not distinguish use cases.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing and authentication (JWT/tenant/company) but fails to state that this is a read operation, what data it returns, or any side effects. The core behavior of listing check runs is uncharacterized.
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 front-loaded with the operation name, achieving conciseness. However, it omits essential information, so the brevity is not earned. It could be replaced with a more informative equivalent.
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?
Despite the output schema existing, the description fails to explain what the tool does or how to use the single parameter. For a 1-parameter tool with no annotation coverage, this description is severely incomplete and does not enable 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 sole parameter `arguments` is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding minimal meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description should detail what keys/values are expected (e.g., repo, ref, check name). It does not, leaving the agent uninformed.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('list_check_runs') without adding meaningful detail about what it lists (e.g., for a repository, commit, or check suite). It does not differentiate from sibling `github_list_check_suites`, leaving the agent to guess the scope.
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 given on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like `github_list_check_suites` or other listing tools. There are no prerequisites, filters, or exclusion criteria mentioned.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) but fails to state that the tool is a read operation, what data it retrieves, or whether it has any side effects. Critical behavioral traits like pagination 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) but wastes the first sentence restating the name. The second sentence provides routing context that is unlikely to aid tool selection. Every sentence should add value; here, only the third sentence partially addresses the parameter. It is not egregiously long, but could be more efficient.
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's complexity (GitHub releases) and presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's operation, how to construct the arguments, or any constraints. An agent would have no clue about the tool's behavior from this description alone.
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% for the single parameter. The description merely states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definition. It does not explain what keys or values the JSON string expects, leaving the agent without necessary parameter guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool's name as 'Github connector operation `list_releases`', adding no functional explanation of what listing releases means. Among many sibling list tools (e.g., github_list_branches, github_list_issues), there is no differentiation, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name alone.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, making it unhelpful for an agent deciding between github_list_releases and other GitHub list operations.
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 provided, so description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and argument format, with no information about side effects, permissions, or typical behavior. The description is entirely infrastructure-focused and fails to disclose what the operation does.
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 short (3 sentences) which is concise, but the first two sentences about routing are not front-loaded with essential functionality. The structure could be improved by leading with the operation's purpose rather than infrastructure details. Still, it avoids verbosity.
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 mutation tool with an output schema (present but not shown), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the modify operation affects, what arguments the JSON string should contain, or what the response looks like. Sibling tools are specific, but this description provides no 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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'arguments'. Description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which is minimal and adds no meaningful context about supported keys, structure, or examples. The schema itself provides no property descriptions, so the description should compensate but does not.
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?
Description is vague: 'Gmail connector operation `modify`' does not specify what resource is modified (email, label, etc.). The name 'modify' implies mutation but lacks specificity. Sibling tools like gmail_get_email and gmail_list_emails indicate email operations, but no clarification is given.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context provided about prerequisites, when not to use, or how it differs from other Gmail tools. The routing information is not usage guidance.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or whether the action is read-only or mutating. The routing detail is technical but not behavioral.
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 but under-specified. While concise, it fails to provide essential information, making it inefficient for the agent.
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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and the tool's likely complexity (domain agent action), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the action does, its return value, or prerequisites.
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 minimally explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, but lacks detail on expected format, constraints, or effect. This is insufficient for proper parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Run the gtm domain agent action competitive_launch_response', which is a tautology. It does not define what a competitive launch response entails or distinguish it from other GTM tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 gtm_launch_coordination or gtm_market_entry_analysis. There is no 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.
Behavior1/5
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 does not state whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or destructive. It lacks any information about side effects, authorization, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation. This is a critical gap.
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 substance. It fails to convey essential information, making it under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Front-loading is irrelevant because the content is 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?
Given the tool has one required parameter and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the board's role, how checklist_id relates, or what the output represents. It also fails to distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'monday_hr_cases_board_id' or 'monday_get_board'.
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 must compensate. It does not mention the parameter 'checklist_id' or explain its meaning, format, or allowed values. The agent receives no help in constructing the required argument.
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?
The description 'Monday.com board for an HR onboarding checklist' does not specify an action. It is unclear if the tool retrieves the board, modifies it, or provides metadata. The name 'hr_live_monday_board' suggests a board, but sibling tools like 'monday_get_board' and 'monday_hr_cases_board_id' indicate possible overlap, yet no differentiation is provided. The purpose is vague and lacks a specific verb-resource relationship.
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. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the many sibling monday tools, this omission significantly hinders correct selection.
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, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only provides routing and authentication context but omits what the tool actually does (e.g., that it modifies a Jira issue by adding a comment).
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 includes unnecessary routing details that do not help the agent. It could be more directly about adding a comment to a Jira issue.
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 is a mutation (add comment) with an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, and output information, making it nearly unusable 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to specify expected keys or structure. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to form valid input.
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?
The description restates the tool name 'add_comment' without defining its purpose. It focuses on internal routing details rather than stating that this tool adds a comment to a Jira issue. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like jira_add_attachment.
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. It does not mention that it is for adding comments to issues, nor does it specify 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and JWT scope but does not disclose key behaviors like return format, pagination, or required permissions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is obvious from 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 short but wasteful, repeating the tool name and including generic routing info that doesn't aid invocation. The structure is standard but content is insufficient, making it under-specified rather than 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?
With no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and a sparse description, the tool is incomplete. The agent cannot determine how to correctly invoke it (e.g., required JSON keys) from the provided text alone.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without any detail on expected keys or structure. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what should be included in the arguments JSON.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Jira connector operation get_sprint_issues') without explaining what the tool does. It does not specify that it retrieves issues for a specific sprint, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name alone, which is insufficient.
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 sibling tools like jira_search_issues or jira_get_board_sprints. There are no prerequisites or context for usage, such as the need for a sprint ID or board ID.
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 provided, and the description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. Behavioral traits are entirely 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 short (two sentences plus an arg line) and technically concise, but it sacrifices substance. It lacks structure (e.g., no example, no breakdown of use case). Conciseness is positive, but the content is too minimal to be helpful.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain when this tool is applicable (e.g., listing transitions for an issue before performing a transition). The absence of context about the argument's intended use and the relation to sibling tools makes it nearly unusable.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is only described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not specify what keys (e.g., issue ID) are expected, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description restates the tool name as 'Jira connector operation list_transitions' without specifying the scope (e.g., transitions for a specific issue) or distinguishing it from siblings like jira_transition_issue. It lacks a clear verb-resource pair beyond the name, making it tautological.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many Jira operations, but the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it is a connector operation with a JSON argument, omitting side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral details.
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 includes irrelevant routing path information ('Routes through...') and redundant 'Args' section. It is not efficiently structured, and some sentences waste space.
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 that the tool is a mutation with no annotations and only one parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks error handling, input format details, and any behavioral 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It merely says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding minimal value. No specifics on expected keys or values.
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?
The description ('Jira connector operation update_custom_fields') is vague. It does not specify what custom fields are updated or how, nor does it distinguish this tool from siblings like jira_update_issue or other Jira operations.
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. There is no mention of 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires permissions. The agent is left without critical safety information.
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 includes irrelevant routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that do not help the agent. It is not front-loaded with purpose and wastes space.
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 sparse parameter guidance, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot understand the tool's effect, return value, or prerequisites.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by detailing expected argument structure.
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?
The description only states it's a 'Monday connector operation archive_item' without explaining that it archives a Monday.com item. It fails to specify the verb+resource clearly, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like monday_delete_item or monday_archive_board. The description lacks any context for selecting the appropriate tool.
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 provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., write operation, side effects, permissions). It only mentions routing, which is generic.
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 includes unnecessary routing details and lacks essential information. It is not front-loaded with key purpose.
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 and a single parameter with no schema descriptions, the description is highly incomplete. It fails to provide any meaningful context for the 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, but no details on required fields or structure. With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description states it is a 'Monday connector operation `create_update`' but does not explain what 'create_update' does. The name suggests creating an update on a Monday item, but it is not clarified. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like monday_create_item or monday_update_item.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 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.
Behavior1/5
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 state whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, whether cascading effects occur, or if the action is reversible. This is a critical gap 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but lacks substantive content. The routing information is generic and does not earn its place. Valuable details are missing, making it an under-specified stub rather than a concise, helpful description.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what identifiers (e.g., board ID, item ID) are required for the delete operation. For a tool with one parameter that is an opaque JSON string, this is insufficient 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It provides no information about what fields are expected in that JSON, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to construct the input.
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?
The description restates the tool name 'delete_item' without explaining what an item in Monday.com is or how this differs from related operations like archiving or updating. It fails to provide a specific verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from siblings like monday_archive_item.
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 monday_archive_item or monday_update_item. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when deletion is appropriate.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructiveness, required permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The routing information is incidental, not behavioral.
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 but under-specified. It does not convey essential functional information, making it insufficiently informative despite its 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?
For a deletion tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description lacks critical context: what it deletes, prerequisites, effects, and return information. It fails to provide a complete understanding of 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to specify what fields the JSON should contain.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name as 'Monday connector operation delete_webhook', a tautology that does not clarify what the tool does. The name implies deleting a webhook, but the description fails to state this explicitly.
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 monday_create_webhook. The description lacks context for selecting this tool appropriately.
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 disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or what happens when invoked. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but fails to provide transparency.
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 includes generic routing boilerplate that is not tool-specific. It is short but contains non-essential information, making it less concise and poorly structured for quick understanding.
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 a single parameter with no documentation and an output schema exists but is not described, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to construct arguments, leaving the agent without enough information 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It only repeats that 'arguments' is a JSON string with default '{}', adding no meaning about expected keys or structure. Minimal value beyond the 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?
The description only states the tool name and routing details. It does not explicitly say what the tool does (e.g., 'Retrieves the board ID for HR cases'). The name implies its purpose, but the description fails to confirm or elaborate, making it vague.
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 like monday_get_board or monday_list_boards. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits: whether it is read-only, what it returns (output schema exists but is not mentioned), or any side effects. Agent cannot infer safety or expected outcome.
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 includes irrelevant routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') and tautology ('Monday connector operation list_items'). It is not structured to front-load the core purpose, wasting space on context that doesn't help 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context about what items are being listed and what the output contains. Among many Monday list tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke it without additional information.
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%, requiring description to compensate. The description says the 'arguments' parameter is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify which keys (e.g., board_id, group_id) are expected. This adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description states it is a 'Monday connector operation list_items' but does not specify what items (e.g., board items, workspace items) or distinguish it from sibling tools like monday_list_boards or monday_list_subitems. The purpose is vague and leaves ambiguity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The description only provides routing and argument format, which does not help an agent decide to invoke this tool.
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 provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (none expected for a list), authentication requirements beyond generic JWT scope, or data volume implications. It only provides implementation routing details.
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 includes boilerplate routing/authentication info that is likely generic and not tool-specific. It is reasonably concise but not efficiently structured for agent decision-making.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what is being listed or what the 'arguments' parameter should contain. It is incomplete for a list operation, lacking context on the resource (e.g., board-specific updates).
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 single parameter 'arguments' has no schema description (coverage 0%) and the description merely restates it as a JSON string without explaining expected keys or structure. This adds no value over the 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?
The description states it lists updates but does not specify the context (e.g., for a board, item, or globally). Among siblings like monday_list_items and monday_list_boards, it fails to differentiate what 'updates' refers to. The routing info is irrelevant to purpose.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like monday_list_items or monday_create_update. No explicit when-not or alternative tools mentioned.
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 provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires authentication scopes, or has side effects. An agent cannot assess safety 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but at the expense of clarity. It provides routing info that is likely automatically added and does not earn its space. It fails to convey the tool's purpose or usage.
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 (Monday.com board operations) and lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role among siblings like monday_archive_item or monday_update_item, nor does it hint at return values despite having an output schema.
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 only parameter is 'arguments' as a JSON string with no schema or explanation of its expected structure. With 0% schema coverage and no description of the parameter's content, the agent cannot determine what arguments to pass.
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?
The name 'monday_move_item_to_group' suggests moving an item to a group, but the description merely restates the name and adds routing details without explaining the action or its effect on the data. It lacks clarity on what 'moving' entails in Monday.com context.
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 on when to use this tool versus other Monday.com tools (e.g., monday_create_item, monday_update_item). No context about prerequisites or scenarios. The description is entirely generic.
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 present, and the description only provides internal routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) rather than behavioral characteristics like required permissions, side effects, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes one sentence on internal routing details that are irrelevant for an AI agent. It lacks concise, meaningful 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what the response represents. It is a stub lacking critical context for a creation 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 single parameter 'arguments' is a generic JSON string with no explanation of expected structure or fields. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description states it's a Notion connector operation to create a database, but it doesn't specify what creating a database means in Notion context. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like notion_create_page or notion_create_dashboard.
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 notion_create_page or notion_query_database. No prerequisites or context for invocation are provided.
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. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as the destructive nature of deletion, required permissions, side effects, or response format.
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 but lacks substance. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, with no front-loaded purpose or structured guidance.
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 presence of an output schema and the tool's complexity (delete operation), the description fails to provide essential context about what gets deleted, how to specify it, or what to expect in return.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no explanation of expected contents (e.g., comment_id). Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no value beyond the parameter name.
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?
The description repeats the tool name 'delete_comment' but does not explicitly state that the tool deletes a Notion comment. It only provides generic routing and argument info, so the purpose is 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 (e.g., notion_create_comment, notion_archive_page). No context on prerequisites or conditions.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention what arguments are needed (e.g., page ID), what the tool returns (presumably markdown), error handling, or any side effects. The routing detail is irrelevant to 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description wastes sentences on routing details that do not help the agent understand tool functionality. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name. Useful information is absent.
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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (unseen), the description should at least state that it fetches page markdown. It provides no complete context, leaving the agent unable to use the tool 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not clarify the expected structure of the 'arguments' JSON string, which is critical since it's the only parameter. The agent is left guessing what keys like 'page_id' are required.
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?
The description states 'Notion connector operation get_page_markdown' which is essentially a tautology of the name. It does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves the markdown content of a Notion page, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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 other Notion tools (e.g., notion_get_page, notion_query_database). The description lacks any context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives.
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, side effects, or whether the operation is destructive. The burden is completely unaddressed.
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 wastes space on boilerplate routing information rather than providing actionable content. It lacks a clear structure that highlights the tool's function or usage.
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 Notion update tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not described, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not cover return values, prerequisites, or typical use cases, 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' with zero schema description coverage. No details on expected keys, formats, or accepted values are given, leaving the agent without guidance.
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?
The description states 'update_database' but does not specify what aspect of a database is updated (properties, content, schema?). It is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like notion_update_database_properties or notion_update_page.
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. With many Notion update tools available, the description fails to provide context for when to choose this specific one.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It doesn't mention whether the tool mutates data, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description includes boilerplate routing information (URL, JWT, tenant, company scope) that is not helpful for understanding the tool's purpose. The core functionality is barely mentioned.
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 Notion update operation, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments, what the markdown content represents, or how this tool differs from other Notion update 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?
The single 'arguments' parameter has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema: it just repeats 'JSON string of arguments' without specifying expected keys or valid values.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Notion connector operation update_page_markdown' without specifying what the tool does. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like notion_update_page or notion_replace_page_markdown.
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 instead of alternatives. The description only mentions routing details, which are irrelevant for usage decisions.
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 mentions routing details and fails to disclose side effects, destructive nature, or what the sync operation actually does.
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 lacks substance. It is under-specified, not concise in a helpful way.
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's complexity and lack of annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain purpose, arguments, or behavior, leaving the agent with no actionable information.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, but no details on its structure or valid keys are given. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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?
The description states it's a 'deep_sync' operation for Quickbooks, but fails to explain what deep_sync does. Compared to sibling tools that have clear verbs like 'list_accounts' or 'create_invoice', this tool's purpose is vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context on what scenarios warrant a deep_sync, nor any mention of 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only mentions the routing path. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or any side effects (e.g., does it modify data? What is the 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes space on the irrelevant routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') while omitting crucial information about the tool's purpose and usage. It is not concise in a helpful way.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide basic information: what the tool does, when to use it, and what parameters to supply. It is severely incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate, but it does not specify what fields the JSON should contain (e.g., filters, pagination).
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?
The description states 'Quickbooks connector operation list_sales_receipts' which is a tautology—it repeats the name without explaining that the tool retrieves a list of sales receipts. It does not differentiate from sibling list tools like quickbooks_list_invoices or quickbooks_list_credit_memos.
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. There is no mention of filters, prerequisites, or comparison to other QuickBooks list operations.
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?
With no annotations and no behavioral disclosure, the description does not indicate read/write nature, side effects, authorization requirements beyond generic JWT scope, or any other behavioral traits. The agent cannot anticipate the impact of calling this 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?
The description is short but not concise in a helpful way; the first two sentences focus on routing details that do not aid tool selection. The parameter description is vague. The structure wastes space on non-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?
Given zero annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema details, the description fails to provide a complete picture. The agent lacks critical information about purpose, behavior, and parameter structure 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's 'Arguments' label. It does not specify expected fields, format, or examples, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation assistant_set_status' without specifying what action it performs. It fails to indicate that this tool likely sets a status for a Slack user, leaving the agent without a clear purpose.
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 sibling tools like slack_assistant_set_title or slack_assistant_set_suggested_prompts. The description lacks any contextual cues for appropriate 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through an API and gives no indication of side effects, permissions needed, or whether the operation is destructive. This is a critical gap.
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 not effectively concise. The first sentence is a tautology, the second is routing boilerplate. The Args section is structured but lacks detail. Every sentence does not earn its place as it fails to inform the agent.
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's complexity (mutation with one parameter and no required fields), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values (despite having an output schema), behavior, or usage constraints. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'arguments' parameter. The description says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type. It does not explain what keys or values the JSON should contain.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation create_canvas' and gives routing info. It does not explain what creating a canvas means or how it differs from sibling tools like slack_create_conversation_canvas. The purpose is unclear beyond the 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 such as slack_create_conversation_canvas or slack_edit_canvas. There are no context or prerequisites mentioned.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication requirements, or what the tool modifies. Since no annotations are provided, the description should cover these but fails to do so, providing only routing information.
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 sacrifices clarity for brevity. It includes boilerplate routing info that is not tool-specific, and does not effectively convey the tool's purpose or usage.
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 and the presence of an output schema (not described), the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, how to invoke it correctly, or what to expect in response.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no explanation of its structure or required fields. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but offers no parameter semantics.
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?
The description simply restates the name 'default_channel' and mentions it's a Slack connector operation, but fails to specify what the tool actually does (e.g., get or set a default channel). The purpose is vague and relies on the agent inferring from the name alone.
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 any alternatives (e.g., other Slack tools like slack_set_channel_purpose). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions routing and arguments. It does not state that the tool retrieves file info, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. The behavior 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 brief but lacks essential content. It is not concise in a helpful way—it omits critical information about what the tool does and how to use it.
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 parameter descriptions and purpose clarity, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It adds no meaningful detail about expected keys or values, leaving the agent unable to construct valid arguments.
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?
The description only states the tool name and routing details, but does not explicitly state what 'files_info' does (e.g., retrieve file information). The name implies the purpose, but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement, making it hard for an AI to understand the action.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_files_delete or slack_list_files. The description provides no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the generic routing detail. There are no annotations, and the description does not explain what happens when the tool is invoked, such as side effects or required permissions.
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 includes routing infrastructure details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that are not useful for tool selection. It is short but misses key information about the tool's actual function.
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, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema description, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine when or how to 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 states that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning over the schema. The schema itself has 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate but fails to provide detailed parameter semantics.
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?
The description states it is a Slack connector operation but does not specify what 'workflows_step_completed' does. The purpose is vague and relies on the tool name for context.
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., slack_workflows_step_failed). No context 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits disclosed. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but omits any mention of read/write nature, authorization details, error handling, or return format. The only behavior stated is routing, which is generic.
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 the first sentence is redundant (repeats name), and the routing information is likely unnecessary. It is concise but wastes space on trivial details rather than useful semantics.
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?
Highly incomplete. Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values. It fails to specify required input parameters (e.g., file ID) within the arguments. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based on the description alone.
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 only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaning about what keys or values are expected. The agent cannot infer how to construct the arguments.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name without clarifying its function. 'get_file_download_url' suggests retrieving a download URL for a file, but the description only says it's a connector operation and routes through an API. No verb or resource is explained.
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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like smokeball_get_file or smokeball_get_file_upload_url. The description provides no context for selection.
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 present, and the description provides no behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or error behavior. The routing info is not behavioral transparency.
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 but lacks substantive content. It is not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified and does not earn its sentences.
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 low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It is incomplete for an agent to use 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no further details on what keys or values are expected. This adds no meaning beyond the schema, which already has 0% coverage.
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?
The description states it is a 'get_layout_design' operation but does not explain what a layout design is or what the tool retrieves. It focuses on routing details instead of purpose, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like smokeball_get_layout or smokeball_get_layout_contacts.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through an endpoint under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, whether it supports pagination, or what happens on empty results.
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 omits critical details. While it avoids verbosity, it is under-specified and fails to provide the necessary information an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.
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 one parameter as a JSON string and no annotations, the description should explain the expected JSON structure or provide examples. It does not, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool 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?
The schema has a single parameter 'arguments' (JSON string) with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no meaning about expected keys, structure, or defaults beyond what the schema already shows.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('list_folders' and 'platform tool smokeball.list_folders') without specifying what is being listed (e.g., folders in Smokeball) or how this differs from other list tools like smokeball_create_folder. It lacks a clear verb-resource-object statement.
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 prerequisites, fallback tools, or scenarios where list_folders is appropriate versus other smokeball list 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?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details ('routes through /api/tools/invoke...'), which are infrastructure concerns rather than behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or data scope. No information about side effects or required permissions.
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 contains verbose routing information that is not actionable for the agent. The first sentence is a tautology; the second adds utility context but is still vague. Every sentence does not earn its place, as the routing detail could be omitted or moved.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description is extremely sparse. It fails to explain what the tool does in practical terms, what input is required (e.g., payment ID), or what the return value contains. The sibling list is extensive but not leveraged for differentiation.
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%, so the description must compensate. It states that the 'arguments' parameter is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal context that the arguments correspond to the underlying Square API. However, it does not specify which fields are expected (e.g., payment_id), leaving the agent with no practical guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the operation name 'get_payment' and mentions it's a Square connector operation. It does not clearly specify what the tool retrieves (e.g., a specific payment by ID) or how it differs from siblings like square_list_payments or square_get_order. The verb 'get' implies retrieval, but the resource 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 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, such as square_list_payments for listing multiple payments. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use the tool.
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 does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, potential side effects, or any error conditions. Behavioral information is completely 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 inefficient: it repeats the name and routing details without delivering meaningful content. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting space on trivial details while omitting 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?
Given the tool is a report with many siblings and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, and behavioral context. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing high-level 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 sole parameter 'arguments' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description only states it is a JSON string of arguments, adding no information about valid fields, structure, or required values. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'balance_sheet_report' and identifies it as a connector operation, but does not explain that it retrieves a balance sheet report for an organization. It relies on the name to imply purpose and fails to differentiate from sibling Xero report tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 xero_profit_loss_report or xero_cash_flow_report. The description lacks context about scenarios or prerequisites.
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 whether the tool performs a read, download, or destruction. The routing note is generic and does not reveal side effects or required permissions.
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 wastes space on redundant boilerplate (e.g., connector operation name) and lacks operational specifics. It is concise but not 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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description does not explain the tool's purpose, input structure, or effects. An agent cannot determine when to call this tool or how to structure the arguments, making it 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?
The schema has a single 'arguments' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' but this is generic and does not specify valid keys or formats, adding minimal value.
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?
The name suggests retrieving an attachment, but the description only states it's a connector operation without specifying what 'get_attachment' does (e.g., retrieve a file by ID, metadata, etc.). It lacks a clear verb-resource pairing and does not distinguish from sibling tools like xero_list_attachments or xero_upload_attachment.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, required identifiers, 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?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or behavior.
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 includes boilerplate routing details that do not aid understanding. It is under-specified rather than concise; clarity is sacrificed.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not reference it or explain return values. For a payroll report tool, the description lacks essential context about what data is returned or how to 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?
The description only restates the parameter name and type from the schema. With 0% schema coverage, no additional meaning is added. The agent gets no insight into what the arguments JSON should contain.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name and mentions it's a connector operation. It does not specify what the payroll summary report does (e.g., retrieve, generate, or summarize payroll data). The routing info is irrelevant for 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 sibling payroll tools like xero_list_payroll_au_timesheets or xero_approve_payroll_au_timesheet. No context on prerequisites or alternatives.
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 behavioral traits disclosed beyond the name. No annotations provided. The description does not mention whether the tool mutates data, required permissions, side effects, or limits.
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 but under-specified. It lacks key information and is not front-loaded; it fails to earn its place.
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 mutation tool like update_bank_transaction, the description is completely inadequate. No output schema, no annotations, and no detail on arguments structure. Sibling tools show many Xero tools, but this one offers minimal 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?
The schema has one parameter 'arguments' with no description. The description adds 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is minimal and does not explain what properties the JSON should contain. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not adequately compensate.
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?
The description states it is a 'Xero connector operation update_bank_transaction' which implies updating a bank transaction, but does not explicitly state the purpose or distinguish it from sibling tools like xero_create_bank_transaction or xero_list_bank_transactions.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, 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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication context, but omits critical details such as whether the operation is mutating, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The lack of behavioral disclosure makes it hard for an agent to assess impact.
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 under-specified. Each sentence is generic and does not earn its place; the routing info is tangential and the parameter description adds no value. It is not meaningfully 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?
The tool has an output schema but the description does not mention return values or expected response. Given the complexity of updating a repeating invoice and the presence of sibling tools, the description is far from complete.
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 a single 'arguments' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description adds only 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is tautological and provides no insight into valid keys, structure, or required fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation update_repeating_invoice' without specifying what updating a repeating invoice entails. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like xero_create_repeating_invoice or xero_list_repeating_invoices, providing no actionable 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or distinctions from similar operations like creating or listing repeating invoices.
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. The description adds routing info (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose side effects, auth requirements beyond scope, rate limits, or that this is 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief but lacks substance. The routing info is front-loaded but the essential purpose and usage are missing. It is under-specified rather than concisely complete.
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 that the tool creates a bill (likely complex with many fields) and has an output schema, the description provides no information about return values, required arguments, or expected behavior. Severely incomplete.
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 'arguments' parameter is described only as 'JSON string of arguments' with no details on required keys, valid values, or format. Schema coverage is 0% and description does not compensate.
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?
The description merely restates the operation name 'create_bill' without clarifying what a bill is or what creating it entails. It focuses on routing details rather than purpose.
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 on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from sibling tools like billcom_approve_bill, billcom_list_bills, etc.
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 only states routing and argument format. It fails to mention read-only nature, pagination, filtering, or return structure.
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 sacrifices completeness. It lacks structure and front-loads irrelevant routing details rather than core behavior. Every sentence fails to earn its place due to vagueness.
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 many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine input structure, expected output, or side effects from this text.
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 with one parameter 'arguments'. The description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding almost no meaning. It does not specify what keys the JSON expects.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name 'list_contacts' without explicitly stating that it lists contacts. It lacks a clear verb-resource statement and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like clio_get_contact or clio_search.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only mentions routing and JWT scope, which are not usage guidelines. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use indications.
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 mentions routing and authentication scope, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it supports filtering or pagination, or what the output contains. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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 short (3 lines) and front-loaded with name and routing info, which is good for conciseness. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness, making it less effective. It earns its place but omits essential 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 the tool's complexity (generic search among many specific list tools) and the absence of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what is searched, how to use the arguments, or what the tool returns. The presence of an output schema (per context) is not reflected in the description.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' with a default of '{}'. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no meaning—no structure, valid keys, or example values. The agent cannot infer how to construct a valid search query.
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?
The description states it is a 'search' operation for Clio, but it does not specify what entity or resource is being searched (e.g., contacts, matters, documents). Given the many clio_list_* and clio_get_* sibling tools, the description fails to distinguish what 'search' targets, leaving the agent unsure when to invoke this tool.
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 on when to use clio_search versus the numerous clio_list_* or clio_get_* tools. The description lacks any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, providing no help for an agent to decide tool selection.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether the operation is read-only or destructive, permissions needed, etc.). It does not even confirm that the tool creates a new worksheet.
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 front-loads irrelevant routing info (JWT, tenant, company scope) instead of the tool's actual functionality. While concise, it wastes space on non-essential 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 the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema (not detailed), the description should clarify the tool's operation and expected output. It completely fails to do so, leaving the agent without sufficient 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?
The schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'arguments'. The description only says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without detailing the expected structure or keys, adding minimal value.
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?
The description states 'Excel connector operation `add_worksheet`' which hints at adding a worksheet but does not explicitly state the tool's purpose. It focuses on routing details rather than the core function, leaving the agent unclear 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 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 sibling tools like `excel_list_worksheets` or `excel_update_range`. The description lacks any 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.
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 behavioral traits such as side effects, read/write nature, rate limits, or authorization requirements. The routing implementation detail is not 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 relatively short but includes unnecessary technical routing details. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more focused on the tool's purpose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool produces or how to interpret results. The agent cannot determine what task this tool performs in practice.
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 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not clarify expected formats or examples, leaving significant ambiguity.
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?
The description states it runs the 'finance_aging' domain agent action, but does not explain what the action accomplishes (e.g., generating aging reports). It is vague and fails to distinguish from other finance tools like finance_forecasting or finance_dunning_outreach.
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 alternative finance tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, required permissions, data access). The generic routing note adds no value beyond infrastructure 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 short and front-loaded with the action name, which is structurally acceptable. However, it sacrifices substance for brevity, missing essential 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context about what the tool returns or how it behaves. For a finance action like dunning recovery, the lack of domain-specific information makes it 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?
Description adds basic labels ('Free-text objective', 'Optional JSON string') but no detail on expected format or content. With 0% schema coverage, more meaningful guidance is needed for parameters like 'inputs'.
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?
The description only repeats the tool's name and says 'Run the finance domain agent action'. It does not explain what 'dunning recovery' entails, lacking a specific verb and resource. The purpose is implied but not clearly stated.
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 on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like finance_stripe_failed_payment_recovery or finance_dunning_outreach. Absence of context or exclusions makes it unhelpful for selection.
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 only mentions routing through a dispatcher; it discloses no behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires permissions, or has rate limits. Annotations are absent, so the description fails wholly to provide 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 short and has a clear structure (title, routing, args). However, conciseness is only beneficial when the content is informative; here, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It is not excessively long but lacks 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 the tool's implied complexity as an orchestrator and the richness of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what tasks the orchestrator can perform, the expected input/output, or how it relates to specific Stripe actions. The presence of an output schema is ignored.
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 add meaning. It labels 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional structured inputs, but it does not clarify valid objectives, input format constraints, or examples. The added value is minimal.
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?
The description starts with 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_stripe_orchestrator', which is tautological. It adds routing context via the dispatcher but fails to state what the orchestrator actually does, leaving its purpose vague. It does not distinguish itself from numerous sibling tools like finance_stripe_dunning_recovery or stripe_create_invoice.
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 orchestrator versus the many specific Stripe actions (e.g., stripe_list_invoices, stripe_raw_api_request) or other finance tools. 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Critical behavioral 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 relatively short and to the point, but it is not front-loaded efficiently. The initial line states the purpose, but the second line adds technical routing details that may be unnecessary. Some structure is present (arg descriptions) but overall brevity is acceptable, though it could be more streamlined.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output contains or how to interpret it. The tool is a dispatcher for a specific action, but the description fails to mention the nature of the action, its prerequisites, or its behavior. Given the complexity of the finance domain and the many sibling tools, this description is severely 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds some minimal meaning: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string'. While better than nothing, these are vague and lack examples, constraints, or guidance on expected format. The description does not compensate adequately for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
The description states that the tool runs a specific domain agent action, but it does not explain what that action does or what the outcome is. The purpose is unclear; it is essentially a tautology restating the tool name without describing the result or functionality.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or any comparison to sibling tools. The description is purely mechanical (routing through dispatcher) and offers no 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or destructive, what it modifies, 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 short, but it includes verbose routing details that are irrelevant for understanding the tool's function. It could be more concise by focusing on the operation itself.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool does, what inputs are expected (beyond a generic JSON string), or what outputs to expect. It is fundamentally 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?
The parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds nothing beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and no additional meaning is provided.
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?
The description merely states it is a 'Github connector operation branch_prefix' and provides routing details, but does not specify what the tool does (e.g., fetch, set, or list branch prefixes). The purpose is vague and relies on the name alone.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, 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 present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint and does not disclose whether the operation is read or write, what side effects occur, or any required permissions. The behavioral impact is entirely 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 very brief, consisting of two short sentences. While concise, it omits critical information about the tool's function. The brevity is not an asset here because essential details are missing.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description is extremely incomplete for an action tool. It does not describe what creating a deployment status entails, what the expected outcome is, or how to use the single parameter. The tool's complexity (wrapping a GitHub API) demands significantly more 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?
The input schema has only one parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds a generic phrase 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which marginally clarifies that the parameter expects a JSON string but provides no details about expected keys, structure, or required fields. This is insufficient to 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is an operation for creating a deployment status on GitHub, but it relies entirely on the name 'create_deployment_status' and provides no explanation of what a deployment status is or how it differs from other GitHub operations like listing deployments. The purpose is vague and merely restates 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. Among the many sibling GitHub tools, there is no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description offers no help in choosing this tool.
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 offers no behavioral disclosure beyond routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not describe side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the tool modifies.
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 (three sentences) but front-loads a tautology and routing details that are unlikely to aid tool selection. It could be more informative in fewer words.
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 single parameter with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to structure the 'arguments' JSON or 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?
The description only states that 'arguments' is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the expected structure (e.g., issueId, file), but it does not.
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?
The description merely states 'Jira connector operation add_attachment' without specifying that it adds an attachment to a Jira issue. It relies on the tool name for meaning, and among siblings like jira_add_comment or jira_create_issue, there is no differentiation.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.
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, rate limits, or error handling. The agent has no insight into what happens when this tool is invoked beyond a vague 'connector operation'.
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 includes unnecessary technical details about routing and scope (e.g., 'Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT...') that do not help the agent decide when or how to use the tool. It wastes space on operational context instead of focusing on functionality.
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 creating a data source in Notion, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what a data source is, what arguments are expected, or what the output will be (despite an output schema existing). The agent cannot effectively use this tool based on the description alone.
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 a single 'arguments' parameter (string) with 0% description coverage. The description only says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no detail about expected structure, required fields, or examples. The 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'create_data_source' clearly indicates creating a data source in Notion, and the description identifies it as a Notion connector operation. However, it does not explain what a data source is or differentiate from sibling tools like 'notion_list_data_sources' or 'notion_query_data_source', leaving the agent with minimal context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only includes technical routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope) which is irrelevant for usage decisions. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are present.
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. It mentions routing infrastructure but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. Lacks detail on 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but wastes first sentence restating the name. Second sentence adds routing detail irrelevant to agent usage. Not concise in a value-adding sense.
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 an output schema present but undocumented, no mention of return values, and no differentiation from many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete for agent decision-making.
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?
Single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' – a tautology. Schema coverage is 0%, yet description provides no meaningful constraints or examples (e.g., expected keys like comment_id).
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?
Description merely restates the tool name as 'Notion connector operation get_comment', without specifying what it retrieves (e.g., a comment by ID? All comments?). It fails to differentiate from siblings like notion_list_comments or notion_create_comment.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions despite many sibling notion tools with overlapping functionality.
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 only mentions routing and authentication ('Routes through... under your JWT...'). It does not disclose what the tool actually does (e.g., creates a job, requires further steps). Behavioral traits are almost entirely 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 short (two sentences plus args listing) but contains redundancy: the first two sentences both name the tool. The routing info takes space without adding functional value. Could be more 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?
Despite having an output schema (unknown content), the description fails to explain the tool's role in the bulk ingest workflow (e.g., must be followed by upload, close). The parameter is not elaborated, and no return value hints are given. Incomplete for a multi-step process.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and title. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain expected keys but does not.
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?
The description states 'Salesforce connector operation `bulk_ingest_create`' which is vague and does not explain what the tool does beyond its name. It does not specify that it creates a bulk ingest job or what that entails. This is only slightly better than a tautology.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like salesforce_bulk_ingest_upload or salesforce_bulk_ingest_close. No context about prerequisites or workflow phase is given.
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 provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, rate limits, required permissions, or what the output contains). It only mentions routing infrastructure, which 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 short but includes generic routing information that does not help the agent. It repeats the tool name without adding value, wasting space.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to construct the input arguments. It omits critical context that would enable correct 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify what keys or values are expected in the JSON.
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?
The description does not explicitly state what the tool does; it only repeats the name 'bulk_ingest_results' and says it is a 'Salesforce connector operation'. The purpose (retrieving results of a bulk ingest job) is left to inference from the tool name and sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 salesforce_bulk_ingest_status or salesforce_bulk_query_results. The description provides no context for selection.
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 provided and description lacks any behavioral details such as required permissions, side effects, or whether the action is destructive or read-only.
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 front-loaded but includes unnecessary routing info and lacks substance.
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 annotations, minimal schema, and a complex action (opening a Slack modal), the description fails to provide essential context for proper 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but the schema does not define structure, and the description provides no further detail on valid keys or values.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation open_modal' without explaining what opening a modal entails or how it differs from other Slack tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus other Slack tools like slack_views_open or slack_post_message.
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 offers no behavioral information such as whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. The routing note is technical and does not compensate for the lack of behavioral transparency.
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, but it is under-informative. While it is concise, it fails to include essential details, so its brevity is a drawback rather than a strength.
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 (a connector with a generic arguments parameter), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the expected input structure, output format, or usage context, despite having an output schema available.
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 arguments parameter. It only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value. It does not specify what keys the JSON should contain (e.g., user ID), leaving the agent underinformed.
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's a Slack connector operation 'users_info', which hints at retrieving user information, but it does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Get details about a Slack user'). The purpose is inferred from the name rather than clearly articulated.
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 like slack_list_users or slack_lookup_user. There is no 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 are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only vs destructive, idempotency, rate limits, or required permissions beyond the generic JWT/tenant/company scope. It 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short (4 lines), it wastes space on implementation routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that do not help the agent. It is not concise in a value-adding sense.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how to interpret it. With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations, the tool definition is incomplete 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is tautological and provides no guidance on valid keys, values, or structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent fully in the dark.
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?
The description only restates the tool name ('Smokeball connector operation get_layout_contacts') without defining what layout contacts are or what the tool retrieves. It lacks a specific verb+resource explanation, making the purpose vague.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., smokeball_add_layout_contact or other list tools). The description is purely operational, with no context about use cases 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?
The description includes generic routing info (JWT, tenant, company scope) but adds no tool-specific behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. With no annotations, the description should carry the burden but fails to do so.
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 but wastes space on generic boilerplate (routing path, scope). The tool-specific part is minimal and uninformative. It is under-specified rather 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 existence of an output schema, return values are not required, but the description fails to explain how to identify which catalog item to retrieve. Compared to sibling Square tools, it lacks critical information 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which sheds no light on expected structure (e.g., catalog_item_id, include_deleted). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Square connector operation get_catalog_item') without explaining what the tool actually does. It fails to specify that it retrieves a catalog item by ID or any other identifier, making it a tautology.
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 square_search_catalog or square_get_item. There is no context about prerequisites, common 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?
The description only discusses routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) and the arguments parameter. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is a critical gap.
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 includes redundant routing details. It could be more concise and front-loaded with the core function. However, it does not contain excessive fluff.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides no information about return values. Combined with zero annotations and poor parameter documentation, the description is highly incomplete for a tool that likely retrieves a specific order.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on the internal structure or required fields, leaving the agent guessing.
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?
The description labels it as 'Square connector operation get_order' but doesn't explicitly state that it retrieves a specific order. It lacks a clear verb and resource description, and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'square_search_orders'.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, 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 present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It only states routing details, which are not behavioral.
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 contains boilerplate routing information that does not describe the tool's functionality. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to earn its sentences.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the argument structure or any usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string with no further explanation. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful guidance on what should be included in the JSON, leaving the agent uninformed.
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 tool name clearly indicates it approves a payroll AU timesheet, and the description repeats this as 'Xero connector operation approve_payroll_au_timesheet'. However, the description does not elaborate on the action, relying solely on the name for clarity. It is adequate but not enhanced.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. The description offers no 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses routing details under JWT/tenant/company scope. It fails to mention that the tool creates a history note (a write operation), required permissions, rate limits, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not efficient: it opens with a tautological restatement of the name and includes generic routing info that could be assumed. Valuable context about the tool's purpose is missing, making the compactness wasteful.
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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a create operation. It does not clarify what the arguments JSON should contain, what entity is affected, or how the agent should construct a valid request, leaving a significant gap in usability.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no specific meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining required or optional fields within that JSON.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Xero connector operation create_history_note') without specifying what a history note is or on which Xero resource it operates. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools like xero_list_history or other create operations.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not describe that the tool performs a mutation (creating a journal), required permissions, side effects, or error states.
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 relatively short but includes unnecessary routing details that do not help the agent understand the tool's purpose. It is not well-structured for quick comprehension; the most relevant information (that it creates a manual journal) is not front-loaded.
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?
Despite having an output schema (unseen), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns, what data is required in the arguments JSON, or any expected behavior. For a creation tool with one opaque parameter, this is severely 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only restates that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string for the connector operation. It provides no information about the expected keys, structure, or content of the JSON, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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?
The description merely states 'Xero connector operation create_manual_journal' which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not explicitly state that the tool creates a manual journal entry, nor does it describe what a manual journal is or what the tool accomplishes.
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 such as xero_list_manual_journals or xero_update_manual_journal. There is no mention of 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?
Lacks behavioral details such as side effects, permission requirements, return structure, or limits; only provides routing/scope context. Without annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Too brief and omits essential purpose and parameter details; the routing info, while useful, does not compensate for lack of functional description.
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?
Incomplete for a simple list tool; lacks specification of what tracking categories are, how to filter, and what the output contains.
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 single parameter is a generic JSON string with no explanation of expected keys or structure; schema coverage is 0% and description adds no meaningful semantics.
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?
The description merely restates the tool's name as 'list_tracking_categories' and adds generic routing info, but does not explain what tracking categories represent or what listing them achieves, failing to distinguish from other Xero list tools.
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 usage context, no when-to-use or when-not-to-use, no alternatives mentioned; the agent must infer from the name alone, which is 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint and scope, but does not clarify whether the operation is destructive, its side effects, or any prerequisites. 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not efficiently structured. It includes irrelevant routing details and redundant naming ('Xero connector operation upload_file'), while omitting essential information. It wastes space without delivering 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?
For a file upload operation, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to specify how to provide the file, what file types are supported, or any expected response. The presence of an output schema is irrelevant if the agent cannot understand how 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 coverage is 0%, and the description defines the single parameter 'arguments' as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaningful detail about expected keys, file content, or format. The agent cannot infer how to construct valid input.
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?
The description states 'upload_file' but does not specify what kind of file is being uploaded or to where within Xero. It does not differentiate from sibling tool 'xero_upload_attachment', which likely serves a similar purpose. The purpose is vague and 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 Guidelines1/5
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. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
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 only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not disclose whether the action creates data, sends messages, or has side effects. The behavioral impact is completely 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 short and no-frills, but it lacks substance. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of informational value, making it minimally acceptable but not well-structured for an AI 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. The tool appears to be a generic action runner, but the description omits critical details like success/failure behavior, expected outcomes, or 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 coverage is 0%, so the description bears full responsibility. It labels 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal clarity. No explanation of expected format, values, or constraints for either parameter.
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?
The description only states 'Run the customer_success domain agent action nps_action_loop' and mentions routing details, but fails to explain what the action actually does (e.g., send NPS surveys, analyze feedback). It is a tautology that restates the name without providing meaningful purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus other customer_success tools (e.g., customer_success_chat, customer_success_health_score_report). No alternatives, prerequisites, 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility but only mentions routing and auth scope. Critical behavioral traits like read-only nature, required permissions, rate limits, or error scenarios 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences but front-loaded with a tautology. It could be improved by replacing redundant lines with substantive 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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and a single opaque parameter, the description fails to clarify what data is returned or how to construct the arguments. It is severely incomplete.
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 only restates the 'arguments' parameter type without explaining its internal structure or valid keys, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description restates the tool name as 'Github connector operation list_reviews' without defining what a 'review' is in this context. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like github_list_pull_requests or github_list_pull_request_review_comments, leaving the purpose 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or exclusions.
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. It only mentions routing through an API, but fails to describe what gets updated, authentication needs, side effects, or idempotency. The description carries the full burden and fails completely.
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 includes irrelevant routing details (e.g., 'Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that do not help the agent. It achieves conciseness but sacrifices clarity and usefulness.
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 one parameter, no output schema explanation, no behavioral context, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what fields to update or what the expected response is.
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 one parameter 'arguments' of type string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what the JSON string should contain or how to structure it. It adds no meaningful information beyond the parameter name.
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?
The description states it is a 'Github connector operation `update_issue`' but does not explicitly describe what the tool does. The name implies updating an issue, but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement, making it 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. With sibling tools like `github_create_issue` and `github_get_issue`, the lack of differentiation is a missed opportunity.
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 present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The routing information does not compensate for the lack of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes redundant routing details that do not serve the agent. It could be more concise and front-loaded with the operation's purpose.
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 Jira and the presence of an output schema, the description still fails to provide a clear purpose or sufficient parameter documentation. It lacks completeness for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning. No details on expected keys or structure are provided.
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?
The description repeats the operation name and routing details but does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., 'Retrieves sprints for a given board'). The purpose is vaguely implied by the name, which is insufficient for an agent to clearly understand the action.
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 like jira_get_sprint_issues or jira_search_issues. There is no context for selection among the many Jira tools or conditions 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what the projection contains, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand its impact.
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, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks front-loaded information about the tool's purpose and does not earn its place by providing valuable 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 annotations and output schema description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's output, how it differs from other memory tools, or what a 'projection' entails. This is inadequate for a tool with no parameters and no behavioral cues.
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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics, but since there are none, it is acceptable.
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?
The description 'Memory-structure projection of the agent' is vague. It does not specify a clear action (e.g., 'get', 'list') or what 'projection' means. It is not a tautology but adds little clarity, especially compared to siblings like memory_query or memory_recall.
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 siblings (e.g., memory_query, memory_recall, memory_projection_soul). The description gives no context about the intended use case or alternative 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 provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It omits whether the operation is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The routing information is technical but not behavioral.
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 wastes limited space on routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke under your JWT') that are likely irrelevant for the agent's decision. It lacks a clear, helpful structure and does not earn its sentences.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or describe what the tool returns. The tool has one parameter and no complexity, but even for a simple list operation, the description should specify the output format (e.g., list of data source IDs, names) to be complete.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema's type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what valid JSON keys/values are expected, but it does not.
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?
Description merely restates the tool name 'list_data_sources' and adds routing details. It does not explain what a Notion data source is or how listing them differs from other notions operations like query_data_source or create_data_source. The purpose is vague and tautological.
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 notion_query_data_source or notion_list_data_source_templates. No context on prerequisites, filtering, or limitations. The description gives zero 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, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only or destructive, side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or output format. The agent has no clue about 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 very short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds information, though the second sentence about routing is somewhat technical. It achieves conciseness without being overly terse, but lacks substance.
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 (product roadmap planning, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, output schema present but not explained), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to state the outcome, how to structure valid inputs, or any domain-specific logic. An agent cannot reliably invoke this 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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage; the description adds basic semantics: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides minimal context beyond the schema's type/default. No constraints, examples, or format details are given, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description merely states 'Run the product domain agent action `roadmap_plan`' without explaining what the action does. It is a tautology that restates the tool name. Compared to sibling 'product_roadmap_prioritize', there is no differentiation. The verb 'run' and resource are clear, but the core purpose (planning a roadmap) is not described.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., product_roadmap_prioritize or other product tools). No when-not-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or context provided. The only usage hint is 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope', which is generic and implied for all 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 provided; the description does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The routing info ('JWT, tenant, company scope') is generic and 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 short but wastes space on generic routing details. It lacks structure and does not efficiently convey the tool's function.
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 an output schema and many sibling tools, the description should provide more context about what the tool returns and how it differs from others. It fails to do so.
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 single `arguments` parameter is a JSON string with no description of its expected contents or format. Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no value.
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?
The description mostly restates the tool name ('list_tax_rates') without defining what the tool does or distinguishing it from sibling 'list_' tools. It adds no concrete purpose beyond the name itself.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., quickbooks_list_accounts) or any context about prerequisites or 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and JWT scope but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The name suggests listing but this is not confirmed.
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 includes unnecessary technical routing details. It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's function. However, it is not excessively long, so it receives a mid-range 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?
The description is completely inadequate for a tool with one parameter and no schema descriptions. It does not explain expected arguments, output, or usage context. An AI agent would have no way to use this tool correctly based on the description alone.
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 meaningful information about the single 'arguments' parameter beyond what is in the schema. It says it is a JSON string of arguments but does not specify valid fields or structure. Schema coverage is 0% and the description fails to compensate.
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?
The description only states the operation name and routing, but does not explicitly state that the tool lists reimbursements. It is essentially a tautology, repeating the tool name without adding clarity on what it does. It does not differentiate from sibling Ramp tools like ramp_list_receipts or ramp_list_transactions.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus any alternatives, nor does it provide context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 whether it is a write operation, expected side effects, or authentication details beyond JWT routing.
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 includes routing details that are likely unnecessary for an agent. It is not overly verbose but could be more focused on functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema and sibling tools, the description lacks context on how to use the tool effectively. It does not explain the upload process or differentiate from other bulk ingest operations.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds generic meaning but does not specify expected keys or structure. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate adequately.
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?
The description states it's a Salesforce connector operation but doesn't specify what the upload does or what resource it acts on. It merely restates the name and provides routing info, lacking a clear verb+resource.
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 on when to use this tool vs siblings like salesforce_bulk_ingest_create or salesforce_bulk_ingest_close. There is no context for when this tool is appropriate.
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 aspects such as required fields, side effects, or authentication needs beyond routing.
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 omits essential information. It is not concise in a helpful way, as it lacks clarity on the tool's purpose and usage.
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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description does not mention return values. For a create operation, critical context about expected arguments is missing.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not specify what keys or structure the JSON should have.
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?
The description states it's a 'create_contact' operation but only describes routing details. It does not explain what creating a contact entails or distinguish it from siblings like 'smokeball_get_contact' or 'clio_create_contact'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 sibling list is extensive, but the description offers no context for selection.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a destructive operation, any authentication requirements beyond JWT/tenant/company scope, or potential side effects such as cascading deletions of associated 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 concise (3 sentences) but front-loads a routing detail that is likely irrelevant for agent invocation. It could be restructured to prioritize purpose and parameter usage.
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 destructive delete operation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a layout is, how to identify which layout to delete, any irreversible consequences, or expected behavior. Although an output schema exists, it does not compensate for the lack of 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema coverage. The description only states it contains 'arguments for the connector operation' without specifying expected keys (e.g., layout_id, confirmation flag). 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name clearly indicates deletion of a layout, and the description repeats the operation name. However, it does not define what a 'layout' is in Smokeball context, and the description is essentially a tautology of the name without adding specific verb-resource clarity. It is minimally clear.
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., smokeball_update_layout or smokeball_get_layout). There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or situational 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only describes routing and JWT scope. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. The agent cannot infer safety or permissions.
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 it wastes space on routing details that may not be helpful for tool selection. The structure is acceptable but could be more informative with less fluff.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or any behavioral details. Important context about the tool's action and results is missing, making it incomplete for an agent to rely on.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is documented as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding minimal value beyond the schema's default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should specify expected keys or structure, but it does not.
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?
The description labels the tool as 'get_file' but does not specify what it retrieves (e.g., file content, metadata). It merely states 'Smokeball connector operation get_file'. Without clarifying the resource or distinguishing it from siblings like smokeball_get_file_download_url, the purpose is vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The description omits any when-to-use or when-not-to-use 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 carries the full burden. It only mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company), which is generic and likely applies to all tools. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral traits beyond the schema are almost entirely 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 short, but it wastes space on routing details that are likely boilerplate. It does not front-load the key purpose or usage. For its minimal content, it is structurally acceptable but not efficient in conveying necessary 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?
The description is severely incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not explain the input arguments, the output semantics (despite having an output schema), or how this tool fits with siblings. The agent would need external knowledge of the Smokeball API to invoke it properly.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. This adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by listing valid keys or providing examples, but it does not. The agent cannot infer what to include (e.g., matter_id, filters).
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?
The description simply states the operation name 'get_matter_items' and the platform tool name, but does not explain what 'matter items' are or what the tool retrieves. It lacks a clear verb-resource pair (e.g., 'Retrieve items associated with a Smokeball matter'). Without domain knowledge, its purpose is ambiguous, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like smokeball_get_matter or smokeball_list_matters.
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. There is no mention of when to prefer it over smokeball_get_matter, smokeball_list_matters, or other related tools. No prerequisites or context for invocation are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only provides routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company). Does not disclose read-only nature, rate limits, pagination, or if it lists all activities without filtering.
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?
Extremely short but under-specified. The description fails to convey essential information, prioritizing brevity over 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?
For a list operation with output schema assumed but not described, the description lacks details on filtering, sorting, pagination, or result structure. The input is a black box, making the tool nearly unusable without external documentation.
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 1 parameter 'arguments' (string, default '{}') with 0% description coverage. Description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not clarify what fields the JSON should contain, leaving the agent guessing.
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?
The description only restates the tool name ('Smokeball connector operation list_activities') without explaining what activities are retrieved or any scope of the list. It adds no value beyond the name itself.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., clio_list_activities or other smokeball list tools). No mention of prerequisites, filtering, or 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?
The description lacks any behavioral details beyond routing and arguments. With no annotations, it should disclose whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, or side effects. None of this 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes boilerplate about routing that may be unnecessary. It could be more concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a connector tool with a generic string parameter) and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments JSON, what fields are available, or what the output contains (though output schema exists).
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 parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal value beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool would benefit from detailing possible keys (e.g., filters, sorting). No such detail is given.
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?
The description only mentions 'Smokeball connector operation list_matters' and its routing, but never explicitly states that the tool lists matters. The purpose is implied by the name, but the description itself is vague and fails to clarify what the tool does beyond being a connector operation.
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 like smokeball_list_contacts or smokeball_list_files. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of disclosure. It does not mention any behavioral traits like required permissions, idempotency, side effects, or conflict 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 short and includes routing information, which may be marginally useful. However, it is appropriately sized but lacks substantive content.
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 an update operation with an opaque JSON parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not specify required fields, acceptable values, or how to structure the JSON. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient; it does not explain what fields the JSON should contain or their formats.
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?
The description states 'update_matter' but fails to specify what updating a matter entails in Smokeball. It is generic and does not distinguish from sibling tools like smokeball_create_matter or smokeball_get_matter.
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 such as smokeball_create_matter or smokeball_list_matters. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only notes the routing path and authentication scope, but fails to mention side effects, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only.
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 only three sentences, which is concise. However, the first sentence is tautological, and the second sentence about routing is generic. The parameter description is minimal but not 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what a BAS report is, what data it retrieves, or any usage notes. The tool's purpose remains unclear, making it insufficient for an agent to use 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema already defines it as a string; the description does not specify expected keys or structure.
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?
The description states it is a 'BAS report' operation but does not explain what a BAS report is or what the tool accomplishes. The verb 'report' is vague, and the description fails to clarify the tool's specific function within Xero.
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 alternative Xero report tools (e.g., xero_aged_payable_report). There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or context for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company). It does not disclose that this is a write operation, potential side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The agent gets minimal insight into 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 short but includes unnecessary implementation details about routing through /api/tools/invoke. It is front-loaded with the tool name but lacks clear purpose. While not verbose, it sacrifices meaningful content 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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what an association is, when to create one, or what the arguments string should contain. The output schema may cover return values, but input semantics are entirely absent.
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 for the sole parameter 'arguments'. The description only says it's a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no structural details or value. The agent is left without knowing the expected keys or value formats, making correct invocation difficult.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation create_association' without explaining what an 'association' is in the Xero context. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like xero_create_contact or xero_create_invoice, leaving the agent confused about the specific resource being created.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding to invoke this tool over any other xero_create_* tool.
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 disclose behavior. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but omits that this is a write operation, its idempotency, required permissions, or whether it creates a new record or modifies existing ones.
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 but wastes space on routing path details that are system-level noise. It is not overly verbose, but the content is minimal and unhelpful.
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 complex operation like creating a bank transaction in Xero, the description provides virtually no context about required fields, defaults, constraints, or return behavior. Even with an output schema, the input structure is undefined.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with default '{}', and the description provides no detail on expected keys (e.g., Contact, LineItems, BankAccount). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation create_bank_transaction' without defining what a bank transaction is or distinguishing it from similar tools like xero_create_bill or xero_create_invoice. It is a tautology.
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. With many sibling Xero creation tools, the agent has no basis to select this one.
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 routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some authentication context. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens during creation (e.g., duplicates, validation). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient behavioral detail.
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, but it lacks necessary detail. Conciseness is not sacrificed for completeness, but here it is too terse. It could be more informative while remaining 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 that this is a create operation with a complex underlying API (Xero contacts), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits information about required fields, argument structure, return values, error handling, and typical usage context. The output schema exists but is not explained.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description coverage (0%). The description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'—this adds negligible meaning. The agent cannot infer what keys or structure the JSON should contain.
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?
The description states it creates a contact in Xero, but gives no specifics about what a Xero contact represents (e.g., customer, supplier). It is a verb+resource but lacks depth and does not distinguish from sibling tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_create_bill.
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 on when to use this tool versus other Xero create operations. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned. The description provides no contextual help for selecting the right tool.
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 present, yet the description does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, authentication requirements beyond routing detail, or what the report returns. The description fails to shoulder the burden left by 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but inefficient: the first sentence is a tautology, and routing details about JWT and scopes are not agent-relevant. Every sentence does not earn its place.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not describe the report's content or purpose. Given the abundance of sibling report tools, this description leaves the agent without enough context to discriminate or use 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only states that the argument is a JSON string, without explaining expected keys or structure. This adds minimal value over the schema's type definition.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation gst_report' without specifying what the GST report does. It lacks a verb-resource combination and fails to distinguish from sibling report tools like xero_bas_report or xero_balance_sheet_report.
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 other Xero reporting tools. There is no mention of prerequisite conditions, exclusions, or comparative scenarios.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and arguments format, omitting side effects, required fields, idempotency, error handling, or any effects of the update operation.
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 could be considered concise, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is structured with a title and an args line, yet lacks essential detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (updating a Xero manual journal) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain the purpose and impact of the update. It fails to provide adequate context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal context beyond the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it does not specify expected keys or structure, leaving the agent with little guidance on how to construct valid input.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('update_manual_journal') without explaining what a manual journal is or what updating entails. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like xero_create_manual_journal or xero_list_manual_journals, leaving the purpose vague.
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., create or list manual journals). There is no mention of prerequisites, common scenarios, 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 provided. Description does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or destructive, rate limits, or pagination behavior. Only mentions routing without behavioral details.
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?
Description is short but omits critical information. While not verbose, it is under-specifying for the tool's purpose and 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?
Given the lack of annotations, a generic input schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate to enable correct selection and invocation. No output schema details provided in description.
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?
Single parameter 'arguments' with no description beyond type and default. Schema coverage is 0%. Description does not clarify what keys or values the JSON string should contain, leaving the agent without needed semantics.
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?
Description states 'list_damages' but does not explain what a damage is in Clio context. It is generic ('Clio connector operation') and does not differentiate from other clio_list_* sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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., clio_get_damage, clio_create_damage, or other list tools). No conditions or prerequisites mentioned.
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 present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, idempotency). It only mentions routing details, which is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 (three sentences) but lacks essential detail. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence is generic and does not earn its place by providing actionable 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 complexity of an update operation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention the need for a matter identifier, which arguments are expected, or the response format. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain required or optional fields, structure, or examples.
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 'update_matter' which clearly indicates updating a Matter resource in Clio, distinguishing it from siblings like clio_create_matter. However, it lacks specifics on what fields can be updated or the effect of the operation, making it only minimally clear.
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 clio_create_matter or clio_get_matter. No prerequisites or context for use are provided, leaving the agent with no decision support.
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 does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutation), authorization requirements beyond the standard JWT/tenant/company scope, rate limits, or error behavior. The description carries the full burden but provides 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not concise in a helpful way. It includes technical jargon about a 'domain-agent dispatcher' that is irrelevant to the agent's understanding. Key information is missing, making the brevity a detriment rather than a virtue.
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?
Although there is an output schema, the description fails to give any high-level indication of what the tool returns (e.g., a summary of customer value). The agent is left without enough context to understand the tool's role within the commerce domain.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not specify the expected structure of 'inputs' or what constitutes a valid objective, leaving significant ambiguity for the agent.
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?
The description only states 'Run the commerce domain agent action `customer_value_summary`', which is essentially a tautology. It does not explain what a customer value summary is or what the tool computes. Compared to sibling tools like commerce_customer_360 or commerce_customer_profile, the purpose is unclear.
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 such as commerce_customer_profile or commerce_customer_360. There are no conditions 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?
No annotations are present, and the description only mentions routing through the dispatcher with authentication scoping. It does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any behavioral traits beyond the routing detail.
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 reasonably concise with two sentences and an argument list. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be more efficient by combining the routing detail with the action 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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the response. For a generic action runner, this is a significant gap. The description fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use the 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but provides no examples, valid formats, or how parameters relate to the FSA review action. The description adds minimal value over the 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?
The description states it runs a finance domain agent action named 'finance_fsa_review', but does not explain what the action actually does. 'FSA' is ambiguous and not clarified. Among many finance sibling tools, there is no differentiation.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT and tenant scope, which is useful, but it does not specify whether the action is read-only, long-running, or what side effects occur. The core behavior of the valuation is not described.
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 clearly lists the two arguments. However, its brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. Every sentence is present, but the content is 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 complexity of a growth equity valuation action and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it fits into the finance domain, or its relationship to other valuation tools. The agent cannot determine when to invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' While these add some meaning, they lack detail on expected format, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent uncertain about valid inputs.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_growth_equity_valuation') without explaining what growth equity valuation entails. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling finance valuation tools like finance_private_company_valuation or finance_dcf_lbo_spreadsheet.
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 over alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting this tool among the many finance_* 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?
The description mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, offering some context but no behavioral details like side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full responsibility but fails to disclose enough.
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 includes a bulleted parameter list, which is structurally acceptable. However, the first sentence is a tautology, and the conciseness sacrifices clarity.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool accomplishes or returns. It fails to provide essential context about the domain agent action, leaving the agent unable to determine when the tool is appropriate.
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 compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it lacks details on expected format, constraints, or how inputs affect the action, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action `finance_ic_memo_doc`'), providing no indication of what 'ic_memo_doc' does. It lacks a specific verb or resource, making it a tautology.
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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. There is no mention of context, alternatives, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, mutation behavior, or what the action entails. No annotations provided to compensate.
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 short and front-loaded, but under-specified. It is not verbose, but lacks necessary detail for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values, prerequisites, or the action's purpose. Incomplete for a domain agent action of likely complexity.
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%. Description adds basic meaning ('free-text objective', 'optional JSON string') but does not explain expected format, structure, or constraints for inputs.
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?
Description says it runs a specific action but does not explain what that action does. The name suggests transitioning from subscription health to expansion, but no elaboration. Sibling tools like finance_subscription_renewal_status and finance_subscription_renewal_sweep are not distinguished.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about typical scenarios or exclusions.
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 provided, and the description fails to disclose that this is a write/mutation operation, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. It only mentions internal routing and authentication scope, which is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and avoids repetition, but the information provided is mostly about internal routing rather than the tool's purpose. It is concise but not effectively 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?
While an output schema exists, the description lacks essential details about repository creation (e.g., required permissions, repository name uniqueness). The context about JWT/tenant/company scope is provided but insufficient for an agent to confidently use 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without any explanation of its structure or required fields. With 0% schema coverage, the description does not compensate, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to construct the argument.
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?
The description only restates the tool name as 'Github connector operation `create_repository`' without explicitly stating that it creates a repository. It provides no clear verb-resource relationship or distinction from sibling create tools like github_create_issue.
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. The description focuses on routing details rather than providing context for selection among sibling 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, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing through `/api/tools/invoke` under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds minimal context, but it fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only or destructive, or what side effects occur.
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?
Although short, the description is not concise in a helpful way—it includes a routing detail that is likely redundant or low-value, and lacks essential information. The structure does not front-load the core purpose.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., branch details). For a simple wrapper, the description is extremely incomplete, leaving the agent unable to determine the tool's effect or output.
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 only parameter `arguments` is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'—this adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not explain expected JSON keys or structure.
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?
The description says 'Github connector operation `get_branch`' which is essentially a tautology—it restates the tool name without specifying what the operation does. It does not distinguish this tool from related siblings like `github_list_branches` or `github_get_branch_protection`.
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 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?
The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides minimal behavioral context about authentication and authorization. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, rate limits, or pagination behavior. With no annotations, the description fails to compensate adequately.
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 brief (three sentences) and can be read quickly. However, its brevity comes at the cost of substance: it includes routing details that may be irrelevant for the agent's decision-making while omitting essential information about usage and parameters. It is concise but not effectively structured for 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?
Given the tool's single opaque parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain that this tool lists workflow runs and what parameters can be passed. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly. The routing information does not compensate for the lack of functional completeness.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema coverage, the description provides no details about the expected keys, value types, or defaults (beyond the schema's '{}' default). The agent has no way to know what arguments are available (e.g., repo, workflow_id, status, per_page).
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?
The description merely restates the tool name (list_workflow_runs) and identifies it as a GitHub connector operation. It does not clarify what workflow runs are, what scope they apply to (e.g., a specific repository or all), or how it differs from sibling tools like github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflow_jobs. This is essentially a tautology.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering, or scenarios where other tools (e.g., github_get_workflow_run) would be more appropriate. This omission is critical given the many similar GitHub list tools available.
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 disclosing behavior. It fails to mention that merging a pull request is a destructive/write operation, any required permissions, or side effects. The description focuses on routing details irrelevant to behavioral 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 short but wastes space on generic routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that is likely common to all tools in this context. It could be more concise and focused on the merge operation.
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 that merging a pull request requires specifying which PR and repository, and the tool has no output schema details, the description provides no actionable information for the agent. It is grossly incomplete for a nontrivial 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' has a type and default documented in the schema, but the description adds no insight into what arguments are needed (e.g., PR number, merge strategy). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only repeats that it's a JSON string.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Github connector operation merge_pull_request') without explaining that it merges a pull request on GitHub. It adds no verb or resource context beyond the 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 like github_create_pull_request or github_update_pull_request. No context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions internal routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but not what the tool does when invoked, required permissions, side effects, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is padded with unnecessary routing details that do not help an agent. It fails to deliver concise, actionable information. Two sentences, but only the first adds minimal 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?
The tool has one opaque parameter with no guidance, no usage context, and no behavioral disclosure. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how it integrates into pull request workflows. Highly incomplete.
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 only parameter 'arguments' has no schema description and the description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no semantic information about required fields or format. The 0% schema coverage is not compensated.
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 repeats the tool name and states it is a 'Github connector operation,' but does not explicitly define what 'remove requested reviewers' means in the context of GitHub pull requests. The purpose is implied but not clearly stated, and sibling differentiation is absent.
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 vs. alternatives like github_request_reviewers or github_dismiss_review. The description gives no context about 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?
The description mentions routing and auth scoping ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which adds some context. However, it omits critical behavioral traits such as whether the tool is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects it has. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool that triggers an action.
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 tool has an output schema but the description does not mention return values or behavior. As a trigger action, it should at least describe what happens (e.g., workflow run created). The lack of essential functional info makes it 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds little beyond the schema's title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain expected structure, required fields, or examples.
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?
The description repeats the tool name as 'Github connector operation trigger_workflow' without explaining what trigger_workflow does. It does not clarify the action (e.g., triggering a workflow run) or differentiate from sibling tools like github_dispatch_workflow.
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, its prerequisites, or alternatives. The tool exists alongside similar tools like 'trigger_workflow' and 'github_dispatch_workflow', but no differentiation is given.
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 only mentions routing and authentication details. It does not disclose that rejection is destructive, any side effects (e.g., candidate notification, status change), required permissions, idempotency, or rate limits. The description fails to inform the agent about the behavioral impact.
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 not front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence merely restates the name. The routing and JWT details are secondary and could be omitted or placed later. The description could be more concise by leading with the purpose.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or any error conditions. For a mutation tool, critical context like side effects, required data, and return values are missing, making it incomplete for safe agent 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but the description does not specify what keys or values are expected. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful guidance beyond the schema itself.
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 mentions it is a 'reject_application' operation for Greenhouse, which implies rejecting an application, but it does not explicitly state the core action. The name is clear, but the description should directly say 'Rejects a candidate's application in Greenhouse' for unambiguous understanding.
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 greenhouse_advance_application. There is no context about prerequisites, conditions, or typical scenarios for rejection.
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 fully bears responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates JWT/tenant/company scoping but omits side effects (e.g., whether upload is destructive or idempotent), failure modes, rate limits, or required permissions. The only behavioral hint is the routing mechanism, which is insufficient for safe 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 short and front-loaded with the main action verb. The second sentence on routing adds context but is not essential. The Args section is properly formatted. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity, making it minimally acceptable rather than well-crafted.
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 (many sibling legal tools) and the presence of an output schema (context shows 'Has output schema: true'), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, or what behavior to expect. The agent would struggle to select or invoke this tool correctly based solely on this description.
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%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not specify expected structure for 'inputs' or provide examples, leaving the agent to infer critical details. A more detailed description or schema annotations would be needed for effective use.
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?
The description states it runs the legal domain agent action 'cert_upload', but does not explain what 'cert_upload' does (e.g., upload a certificate for compliance purposes). The verb+resource is vague, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like legal_breach_response or legal_compliance_monitoring. The action name suggests a purpose, but the description does not confirm or elaborate.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description only provides routing details, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context for invoking this tool.
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 routing through an API under JWT/tenant/company scope, which offers some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to explicitly state that this is a read-only operation (listing messages) and does not describe potential side effects or return characteristics.
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 it front-loads routing information (two sentences) while the core purpose is only implied by the name. It could be more concise by stating the listing action first. The structure is acceptable but not optimized.
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 (listing channel messages requires identifying the channel) and the presence of sibling tools, the description fails to specify what parameters are needed or how to invoke it properly. An output schema exists but is not shown, so completeness remains 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is generic and does not specify the required structure (e.g., channelId, teamId). It adds no meaningful semantic value.
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?
The description only restates the operation name and shows routing details, but does not explicitly state that the tool lists messages from a Microsoft Teams channel. The purpose is vague and relies on interpreting the 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 like microsoft_list_chat_messages, microsoft_post_channel_message, etc. The description lacks any context about selection 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?
The description mentions authentication routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose that the tool posts a message to a channel, its effects, 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 short but includes redundant phrasing ('Microsoft connector operation') and routing details that could be omitted 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits the core functionality (posting a message to a channel) and leaves the agent guessing what the tool actually does.
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 barely adds value by labeling `arguments` as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' but provides no details on expected fields or format.
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?
The description only restates the tool name as 'Microsoft connector operation `post_channel_message`' without clarifying that it posts a message to a Microsoft Teams channel. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like `microsoft_post_chat_message`.
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, nor any context about 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?
The description only provides routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies file contents, requires permissions, or has side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description should carry the full burden but fails.
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 not concise in a helpful way; it wastes space on routing info without adding functional value. A better structure would front-load the tool's purpose and usage.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain the core operation of updating a file. It is incomplete for a tool that modifies state, as it lacks any context about what fields can be updated, prerequisites, or expected outcomes.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful detail. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about required fields or format, making it nearly useless for parameter construction.
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?
The description states 'update_file' but does not clarify what updating a file entails (e.g., content, metadata, permissions). Among siblings like microsoft_download_file and microsoft_upload_file, the purpose is vaguely implied but not explicitly defined.
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 microsoft_upload_file for creating files or microsoft_download_file for reading. 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 provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention that the tool creates a new group on a Monday.com board, what side effects occur, or any permissions needed. The routing information does not help understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but lacks meaningful content. It is front-loaded with a tautology and routing details, wasting space that could be used for actual guidance.
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's complexity and the presence of a single opaque parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention output, expected argument structure, or examples, leaving the agent with no actionable information.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal value over the schema title. Critical information about required keys (e.g., board_id, group_name) is missing, and schema coverage is 0%.
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?
The description states it is a 'Monday connector operation create_group' but does not explain what a group is in Monday.com or how it differs from sibling tools like monday_create_board or monday_create_item. The purpose is vague and lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, or alternatives. It only describes routing, which is irrelevant 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 must disclose behavior. It mentions routing and scope but not whether the operation is read-only, error handling (e.g., if item not found), authorization requirements, 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 short and front-loaded with the name, but it wastes space on routing details that are irrelevant for selecting or invoking the tool. Could be more concise by removing boilerplate and adding useful 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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description does not mention return values or how to interpret results. It lacks critical context such as the need for an item identifier, making it 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It fails to specify required fields (e.g., item ID) or format, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct the JSON.
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?
The description repeats the tool name ('get_item') and labels it as a 'connector operation' without explaining what an 'item' is in Monday.com context. It fails to specify that this tool retrieves a specific item from a board, leaving the purpose vague.
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 siblings like monday_list_items, monday_search_items, or monday_get_board. The description offers no 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?
The description mentions routing through an invoke API but does not disclose read-only or destructive behavior, required authentication scopes, or any side effects. With no annotations, the tool's behavioral profile is almost entirely unclear.
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 not effectively structured. It front-loads a generic path explanation rather than prioritizing functional details. While no words are wasted, the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. The single parameter 'arguments' is opaque, and no examples or further context are given, making the tool nearly impossible to use correctly without external knowledge.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide details on expected keys (e.g., boardId, query) but does not.
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?
The description only states it is a 'Monday connector operation search_items' without explaining what searching items entails. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like monday_list_items or monday_get_item, leaving the purpose vague.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as monday_list_items or monday_query_data. No context about prerequisites or use cases is provided.
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 discloses no behavioral traits (side effects, auth requirements beyond JWT context, rate limits, etc.). The routing detail does not substitute for behavioral 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 short and includes an Args section, which is structured, but the brevity sacrifices clarity and 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?
Despite having an output schema and one parameter, the description does not explain the tool's purpose, expected input details, or output. It is inadequate for correct tool selection and 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 description coverage is 0%. The description states the argument is a JSON string of arguments but provides no specifics about expected keys or format, offering minimal added meaning.
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?
The description states the tool name and routing but fails to specify what the tool actually accomplishes. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like notion_create_file_upload or notion_complete_file_upload.
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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions 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?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, destructiveness, or side effects. With no annotations, the agent has no information about the tool's safety or 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 short but not well-structured. It front-loads technical routing info instead of operational purpose. While concise, it sacrifices clarity.
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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description does not mention return values. The tool has many siblings, yet no context is provided about block-level operations or how this fits into Notion workflows.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments' but no details are given about its structure, keys, or possible values. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's existence.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name ('update_block') without specifying what a block is or how this differs from updating a page or database. It lacks a clear, distinct purpose statement.
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 sibling tools like notion_update_page or notion_update_database. There is no mention of prerequisites or 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral info. It only mentions authentication routing and that arguments are a JSON string, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, or any side effects. The generic routing info 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?
While the description is short, it is not concise in a helpful way; it omits critical information. It does not follow a front-loaded structure and every sentence adds minimal 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?
The description is completely inadequate for a tool that requires understanding of PayPal payout listings. There is no mention of what the tool returns, how to filter, or any limitations. Even with an existing output schema, the lack of any behavioral or semantic description makes it unusable.
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 meaningful details about the 'arguments' parameter. It only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no value beyond the schema. It does not list expected keys or formats.
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?
The description only states the connector operation name 'list_payouts' and routing details, but fails to explain what the tool does (e.g., retrieve a list of payouts from PayPal). It is better than a tautology but still 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like stripe_list_payouts or square_list_payouts present among sibling tools. The context for usage is entirely absent.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to describe whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. The behavior of the underlying API is completely 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 short but not concise in a helpful way; it omits essential information. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the two sentences provide minimal value—one repeats the name and the other states obvious routing details. The structure is fine but under-specified.
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?
Despite having only one parameter, a missing output schema (though context says it exists, not described), and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what a bill is, what the expected input format should be, or what response to expect. Agents cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.
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 for parameters. The description only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema type definition. There is no explanation of what fields the JSON should contain, which is critical for agents to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'create_bill' and identifies it as a QuickBooks connector operation, but provides no specific verb or resource definition. It does not explain what creating a bill entails or distinguish it from other QuickBooks create tools like create_invoice or create_entity.
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. There are sibling tools such as billcom_create_bill, clio_create_bill, and xero_create_bill, but the description offers no context for selection or exclusion.
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 mentions routing through an API endpoint but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions.
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 includes routing details that may be better placed elsewhere. Still concise, but not optimally structured for quick comprehension.
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 large set of sibling list tools and lack of annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned, how to filter, or when this tool is appropriate.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds little beyond the schema (default '{}', type string). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain valid argument structures.
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?
The description only states 'list_items' without specifying what kind of items (e.g., inventory, products, services). It relies on the tool name and sibling context, but the text alone is vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quickbooks_list_accounts or quickbooks_list_invoices. No context about prerequisites or scope.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as read-only vs. write, side effects, or data returned. It only mentions routing and argument format, failing to indicate safety, mutability, or output characteristics.
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 front-loaded with the name and routing, but the routing information is boilerplate and does not justify its presence. The arg description is minimal. It is concise but lacks substance, earning a 3.
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?
Although an output schema exists (reducing need for return value explanation), the description fails to explain the core operation of the tool. For a simple Quickbooks wrapper, essential context about what the tool does is missing, leaving it incomplete.
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 only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already states (a generic string parameter with default '{}').
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?
The description only states 'Quickbooks connector operation payroll_employees' without specifying whether the tool lists, retrieves, creates, or modifies payroll employees. The name suggests payroll employee data, but the purpose remains vague. No verb or resource scope is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 quickbooks_payroll_company_info or quickbooks_payroll_payslips. The description only provides routing and scope information, not usage 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. The description only mentions routing and auth scope but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, error behavior, or what happens on successful update.
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 uses clear bullet-style for args, but it sacrifices essential detail for brevity. It is structured but not sufficiently 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?
With no annotations, sparse schema, and no output schema details, the description is grossly incomplete. An AI agent cannot determine valid entity types, required fields, or expected outcomes, making the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments, but no details on expected keys, valid values, or structure. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal clarity beyond the schema's type definition.
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?
The description only restates the tool name and mentions it's a connector operation, but does not specify what entity is being updated (customer, invoice, etc.). It adds no specific action-resource context beyond the name itself.
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 on when to use update_entity versus create_entity or get_entity. No context about prerequisite steps or entity types, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint with authentication scope, but fails to describe effects such as message irreversibility, notifications, or permissions required.
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 brief, the description sacrifices necessary detail. The routing and generic argument lines add minimal value and do not compensate for missing actionable content. This is under-specification, not effective 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 zero annotations, no parameter documentation, and the presence of an output schema (unavailable here), the description fails to provide adequate context for a deletion tool. Critical information about required arguments, behavior, and return values is missing.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's type definition. The expected structure (e.g., required fields like channel and timestamp) is absent.
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 references 'delete_message' and 'slack.delete_message', which implies message deletion, but it does not explicitly state the tool's action. The purpose is conveyed primarily through the name rather than the description, making it 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_delete_canvas or slack_update_message. No prerequisites or context for invocation are provided, leaving the agent without decision 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing via /api/tools/invoke with authentication context, but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, its side effects, performance impact, or response format. The output schema exists but is not described.
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 (two sentences) but wastes the first sentence restating the name. It is front-loaded with the name repetition and lacks substantive content, though it avoids verbosity.
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 retrieving team info, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what data is returned (though an output schema exists), what arguments are needed, or how errors are handled. The agent lacks essential context to use this tool 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?
The single 'arguments' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description only repeats that it is a JSON string of arguments without explaining expected keys (e.g., team ID) or structure. This provides no useful guidance for constructing the parameter value.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation `team_info`' without specifying what team information is retrieved (e.g., team name, members, details). The routing context does not clarify the core purpose, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's exact function.
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 other Slack tools like slack_list_channels or slack_list_users. There are no usage examples, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, making it impossible for the agent to choose appropriately.
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 mentions routing through '/api/tools/invoke' with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful for auth context. However, it does not describe the operation's side effects, whether it is destructive, or what happens upon invocation.
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 but under-specified. It is not effectively concise because it sacrifices necessary details 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 complexity of the tool and lack of annotations, the description fails to explain the core functionality. It does not mention the return format or any behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for an agent to correctly 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate with any details about expected keys or structure.
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?
The description states it is a 'connector operation create_task' but does not explicitly state that it creates a task in Smokeball. It is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like smokeball_create_bill or smokeball_create_contact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. The description does not provide context for its appropriate use or mention any 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 provides minimal behavioral context beyond routing details. No mention of side effects, rate limits, or return format, though an output schema exists. The description does not add value beyond structured fields.
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 avoids fluff, but it is under-specified. It could be restructured to front-load the search purpose and key constraints.
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 search tool with many siblings and an output schema, the description fails to convey what can be searched, how to construct the arguments, and how it differs from related tools. Incomplete for 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only says 'JSON string of arguments' without specifying valid keys or formats. This adds almost no meaning beyond the 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?
The description only states it is a 'search' operation but does not specify what entities or data it searches over. Given the presence of 'smokeball_integrated_search' as a sibling, 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 Guidelines1/5
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 the many other smokeball tools like smokeball_list_matters or smokeball_integrated_search. The agent has no 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions generic routing but does not disclose behavioral traits such as mutability, permissions, side effects, or rate limits. Even basic information that this tool creates a record is implied but not explicitly stated.
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, but it is underspecified rather than concise. It does not earn its keep; every sentence is generic and fails to convey essential information. Better to have no description than one that is merely a tautology.
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, zero schema description coverage, and a single opaque parameter, the description is severely incomplete. It does not even state the basic purpose of creating a time entry. An output schema exists but is not referenced in the description, adding no value.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds negligible meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but provides no details on expected structure, keys, or examples, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation `create_time_entry`', which is tautological. It does not explain what a time entry is or what creating one does, failing to provide a specific verb+resource distinction. Compared to siblings like 'xero_list_time_entries', it offers no 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which this tool should be avoided. The description lacks any usage direction.
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 behavior. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) but no information on read-only nature, side effects, or output format. Output schema exists but is not described.
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 includes generic routing details that are likely common to all connector tools, adding no value. It does not front-load the key purpose, and the space could be used for explaining parameters or usage.
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's purpose (retrieving a specific payroll AU timesheet), the description is severely incomplete. No explanation of what a timesheet is, how to identify one, or what the response contains. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides virtually no useful 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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with zero schema description coverage. No explanation of expected keys (e.g., TimesheetID) or default values, making it impossible for an agent to know how to construct the argument.
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?
The description only repeats the tool's name and operation path ('Xero connector operation get_payroll_au_timesheet') without specifying that it retrieves a specific timesheet. The verb 'get' is clear from the name, but the description fails to confirm the action or resource.
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 like xero_list_payroll_au_timesheets or xero_approve_payroll_au_timesheet. No context for prerequisites 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 provided. Description mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has 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?
Description is short but includes unnecessary routing implementation details. It is concise yet uninformative.
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?
Crucial information about what is being listed is missing. Despite having an output schema, the description does not hint at the return structure or data content.
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 parameter is 'arguments' described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds little detail about expected keys or format.
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?
Description restates the tool name 'list_associations' without specifying what kind of associations (e.g., invoices, contacts, projects). The generic phrase 'connector operation' lacks domain-specific purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_list_invoices or xero_list_contacts. No context on 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope, which is somewhat transparent, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether pagination or filtering is supported, or any side effects. The behavioral traits are minimally addressed.
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 not effectively concise; it includes routing details that are likely redundant under typical tool invocation and fails to present essential usage information first. 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, expected input, or behavior of the tool. An agent has no context to correctly format the 'arguments' parameter or interpret the result, making the tool nearly unusable without 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?
The only parameter, 'arguments', is a JSON string with default '{}' and no description of expected keys or structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no meaningful guidance. The agent cannot determine how to populate this parameter.
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?
The description repeats the tool name 'list_credit_notes' and identifies it as a Xero connector operation, but does not explain what credit notes are or what the tool returns. It does not distinguish from sibling list tools like xero_list_invoices or xero_list_payments, leaving the purpose 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. Siblings include many Xero list tools, but the description offers no differentiation.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions authentication routing, but fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the deletion is idempotent, what happens if the resource does not exist, or any side effects beyond the obvious destructive 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 short but includes redundant routing information that is likely unnecessary for tool invocation. It could be more efficient by omitting technical routing details and focusing on functional semantics.
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 lacking. It does not explain the output, error handling, or the format of the arguments JSON. Given the tool has a single parameter with no schema description and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an AI agent to use it 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type and title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not meaningfully compensate by explaining expected JSON structure or required fields.
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's a 'delete_damage' operation, so the action is clear. However, it does not explain what a 'damage' is in the Clio context, relying solely on the tool name. Compared to siblings like clio_create_damage, the purpose is distinguishable 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 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 like clio_update_damage or clio_get_damage. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions for use, or scenarios where it should be avoided.
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 carries full burden. It only notes routing and scope (JWT/tenant/company) but does not disclose that it is a read operation, required permissions, error behavior (e.g., if damage not found), or any side effects. The name implies read-only but not confirmed.
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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool name and route. However, the first sentence essentially repeats the tool name, which is wasteful. Could be more informative per sentence.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no schema descriptions, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the 'arguments' JSON should contain, what the output format is (output schema exists but not used in description), or any prerequisites. Agent lacks sufficient context to use 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 has one parameter ('arguments') with 0% description coverage. Description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' but does not specify what keys are needed (e.g., damage ID). This is minimal compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
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?
Description is vague: it states 'Clio connector operation get_damage' but does not specify what a 'damage' is or that it retrieves a single damage record. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like clio_list_damages or clio_get_contact, as the purpose is generic.
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 usage guidance provided. Does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_list_damages, clio_update_damage, etc. No when-not 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?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions routing information (JWT, tenant, scope) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, safe, or has rate limits or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal transparency beyond technical routing.
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 wasteful—it includes overly technical routing details that do not aid an AI agent in selecting or invoking the tool. It lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement and uses space on infrastructure concerns rather than functional guidance.
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?
Considering the lack of annotations, zero schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description should compensate but does not. It omits essential context like return value structure, pagination, or filtering capabilities, making it insufficient for an agent to use 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify what keys or values are expected in that JSON. It adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name.
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?
The description merely states 'Clio connector operation list_time_entries' which restates the name without explaining what listing time entries entails. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like clio_list_activities or clio_list_bills, leaving the agent unclear about the specific resource being listed.
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 clio_create_time_entry or clio_search. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation.
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 routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but with zero annotations it does not disclose the action's side effects, required permissions, or safety profile. Critical behavioral traits 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 relatively concise at three sentences, but includes implementation details (routing, JWT) that are not directly useful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.
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 two parameters, no output description, and no explanation of the trend_synthesis action's purpose or return value, the description lacks essential completeness. Agents cannot predict tool behavior or results.
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%, so the description must compensate. It labels inputs as 'structured inputs' but provides no format, constraints, examples, or guidance on what constitutes valid values. Agents have minimal actionable info.
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?
The description states 'Run the commerce domain agent action `trend_synthesis`' but does not explain what trend synthesis actually does or produces. It only describes the routing mechanism, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's core purpose.
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 sibling commerce tools like commerce_demand_forecast or commerce_pricing_intelligence. The description fails to differentiate use cases.
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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, return values, rate limits, or whether the action is read-only or mutating. The action 'icp_intelligence' is not described, leaving the agent blind to its 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 concise with two sentences and bullet points for args. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical information (what icp_intelligence does). The routing detail could be omitted or placed later. Acceptable but not optimal.
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 simplicity (2 params, no required, output schema exists), the description should clarify the purpose of icp_intelligence and what the output contains. It fails to do so, leaving an information gap. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing action explanation.
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%. The description adds minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' It does not specify format, constraints, or examples. The value added over the schema is low.
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?
The description states 'Run the crm domain agent action icp_intelligence' but does not explain what icp_intelligence does. The term is domain-specific and unclear to an agent. The purpose is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like crm_plan_domain_intelligence.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives authentication context, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor when not to use it. There are no explicit usage guidelines.
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 must disclose behavioral traits itself. It fails to mention whether the action is read-only or mutating, any side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. The description is silent on these critical aspects.
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 includes unnecessary implementation details about routing ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher...'). It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's functionality in fewer 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's domain (subscription renewal status) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what 'renewal status' entails and how the result is used. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like customer_success_finance_subscription_renewal_sweep or finance_subscription_renewal_status.
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 defines 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names. No details on expected structure, allowed values, or how to construct the inputs.
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?
The description repeats the tool name ('Run the customer_success domain agent action finance_subscription_renewal_status') without stating what the action does. It does not clarify whether this is for checking, updating, or performing renewal status operations. Sibling tools like customer_success_finance_subscription_renewal_sweep exist, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., finance_subscription_renewal_status or customer_success_chat). The description only mentions generic routing through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is common to all such actions.
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 burden is on the description. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful, but does not disclose what the action actually does (e.g., updates CRM, creates records), potential side effects, or return values. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 with 3 sentences plus parameter lines. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff, but it is too terse and sacrifices information. Could be improved by adding behavioral details without being overly 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 likely performs a write operation (credit risk to CRM health), the description does not explain the output or side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged. The tool is part of a large set of siblings, and without differentiation, the description is incomplete for an agent to use 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 adds 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs, which provides basic meaning but lacks detail on format, constraints, or examples. Insufficient compensation for undocumented 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?
The name suggests a mapping from credit risk to CRM health, but the description only says 'Run the finance domain agent action' and does not explain what the action does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish from sibling finance tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like finance_customer_health_risk, there is no comparison or context provided. The description does not state 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?
Annotations are not provided, so the description must carry full burden. It mentions authentication scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, safety, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short, but it repeats the tool name and contains technical routing details that are not essential. It could be more concise and front-loaded with purpose.
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 specialized finance tool, the description lacks essential context about what 'tie_out' accomplishes, expected outcomes, or prerequisites. The presence of an output schema is noted but does not compensate for missing 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' and 'inputs' generically as 'free-text objective' and 'structured inputs', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema defaults.
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?
The description restates the tool name and mentions routing, but does not explain what 'tie_out' means in finance context. It fails to distinguish this tool from the many other finance_* sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 any 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 are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or affects other resources. The routing detail is infrastructure information, not 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes two sentences on routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that is irrelevant to tool selection. It fails to front-load the core purpose.
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?
Even with an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool accomplishes. For a creation tool, basic context like 'Creates a git branch or reference' is missing, leaving the purpose ambiguous.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is tautological and provides no insight into expected keys, format, or examples.
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?
The description merely restates the name 'Github connector operation create_branch_ref' without explaining what the tool does (e.g., creating a git branch or reference). It lacks a specific verb and resource, making it nearly a tautology.
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 github_create_branch. No prerequisites, exclusions, or 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, so description must disclose behavior. It only mentions authentication routing but does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer consequences of 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?
Description is short (two sentences) but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. It is concise but at the expense of essential content.
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 GitHub check runs and zero schema parameter descriptions, the description provides insufficient context. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The agent lacks information to construct valid arguments or understand the response.
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%, but description only repeats 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It adds no information about required keys, format, or expected values. The agent cannot determine how to properly structure the arguments.
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?
Description repeats the tool name 'create_check_run' as a 'Github connector operation' without defining what a check run is or how it differs from similar tools like github_update_check_run or github_list_check_runs. The routing infrastructure note does not clarify purpose.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions routing/auth details but does not describe the core operation's side effects, whether it is read-only, or what the tool actually does. The behavioral characteristics are unclear.
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 includes unnecessary routing details that do not help the agent. It is not front-loaded with the core purpose. While concise in length, it sacrifices clarity for 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 tool has an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret the output, or how it differs from similar GitHub tools. The agent lacks crucial 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage. The description only repeats the parameter name 'arguments' and says it is a JSON string for the connector operation. It adds no meaning about the expected structure, keys, or examples, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description only states 'Github connector operation `default_repo`' without explaining what the operation does. It does not specify whether it retrieves, sets, or lists a default repository. The mention of routing and authentication details does not clarify the purpose.
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. With sibling tools like github_default_org, github_default_pr_base_branch, and many others, there is no differentiation or scenario-based 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 provided, the description carries the full burden but only adds routing and authentication scope details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'). It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, paginated, or what the response format looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (4 lines) but at the expense of critical information. It front-loads the operation name but omits purpose, usage, and parameter details, making it under-specified rather than 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?
Despite an output schema being present, the description lacks enough context for an agent to determine when to invoke this tool among many similar GitHub list operations. It does not explain the concept of check suites or how to construct the 'arguments' parameter.
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 a single 'arguments' parameter (string) with 0% schema coverage. The description states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but fails to specify what keys or values are expected, leaving the parameter essentially undocumented.
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?
The description merely restates the operation name 'list_check_suites' without explaining what check suites are or how this tool differs from similar GitHub list tools like 'github_list_check_runs' or 'github_list_branches'. It lacks a clear verb-noun pair that defines the tool's specific function.
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, no indication of prerequisites, and no mention of what check suites represent. The description assumes prior knowledge of the GitHub API.
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 whether it is a write operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It merely mentions routing. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not front-loaded with the primary purpose. It wastes space on routing details that are likely implicit. Every sentence does not earn its place; the purpose is buried.
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 and the presence of many sibling GitHub tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the review submission process, required arguments structure, or return value (though output schema exists, the description adds no context). An agent would struggle to use this 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 a single parameter 'arguments' with no description, only a title and type. The tool description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides—'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' is essentially a restatement. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 is a GitHub connector operation for submit_review, but does not explicitly state that it submits a review on a pull request. The verb 'submit_review' hints at the purpose, but it is vague and not clearly differentiated from sibling tools like github_dismiss_review or github_request_reviewers.
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 (e.g., existing pull request, review state), context, or exclusions. The description lacks any usage directions.
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 whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what side effects occur. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the generic routing statement.
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 includes minimal information, but it is not well-structured. The routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') is likely unnecessary for the agent's use and adds noise. While no text is wasted, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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 updating a GitHub pull request, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the required arguments, possible values, or expected outcomes. Although an output schema exists, the description itself provides no guidance on how to invoke the tool successfully.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' While this indicates the parameter format, it does not explain what keys/values the JSON should contain, leaving the agent without actionable guidance. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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?
The description only restates the operation name 'update_pull_request' and provides generic routing info. It does not specify what aspects of a pull request can be updated (e.g., title, body, state). The purpose is vaguely implied but not clearly stated, making it difficult for an agent to understand the tool's specific function without relying on the tool name alone.
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 compared to siblings like github_create_pull_request, github_merge_pull_request, or github_get_pull_request. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting this tool over others.
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 carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. The actual operation is unexplained.
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 imprecise. It uses generic wording like 'connector operation' and does not provide any substantive information. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting the opportunity to inform the 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?
Despite having an output schema (presumably), the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the arguments affect the result. The simplicity of the tool (one parameter) does not excuse the lack of completeness; a proper description should clarify purpose and 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string defaulting to '{}', with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what fields or values the JSON should contain, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter. Baseline for 0% coverage requires the description to compensate, which it fails to do.
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?
The description merely states it is a Greenhouse connector operation named 'default_office_id' but does not explicitly state what the tool does. It is nearly a tautology, repeating the name without adding clarity. Sibling tools like greenhouse_default_department_id have similar naming but no distinction is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, this omission is significant.
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 routing through domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose what the action actually does (generates IaC), its side effects (e.g., creates resources), or whether it is read-only or destructive. This is insufficient for a tool likely performing write operations.
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 (3 sentences + args list), but it sacrifices essential information for brevity. Important details about the tool's purpose and behavior are omitted, making it under-informative. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.
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 tool likely generates infrastructure as code, which is a complex operation. The description fails to explain what the action does, what return values are produced (output schema exists but not described), and how it fits within the sibling workflow tools. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this 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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds 'free-text objective' for message and 'structured inputs' for inputs, which adds some meaning but is vague. For a tool with zero schema parameter descriptions, more detail is needed (e.g., expected format, examples, constraints).
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?
The description says 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `generate_iac`', which is tautological. It does not state what 'generate_iac' does (e.g., generate infrastructure as code templates). The description adds routing details but no clear verb+resource differentiation from sibling tools like it_ops_plan_iac or it_ops_open_iac_pr.
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 context on prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or typical scenarios. The sibling tools suggest related workflows, but the description offers no differentiation.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to explain what the action does, side effects, or return values. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, but the parameter descriptions are bare and not structured (plain text). It could be more organized, but it is not overly 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?
The description lacks completeness: it does not explain what 'engagement status' means, what the output contains despite an output schema existing, or any behavioral consequences. For a domain agent action, this leaves significant gaps 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It labels 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds minimal context but lacks detail on expected format or examples. This is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description says 'Run the it_ops domain agent action sdlc_engagement_status,' which is tautological and fails to define what 'engagement status' entails. It does not distinguish the tool from many it_ops sibling tools like it_ops_analysis_review or it_ops_plan_iteration.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing and scope details, not the actual behavior (e.g., side effects, required permissions, or whether it mutates data). The behavior 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes unnecessary routing information that doesn't aid tool selection. It lacks a clear statement of purpose and is not optimally front-loaded.
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 given the tool's complexity. It omits the core function (adding issues to a sprint), input requirements, and any differentiation from sibling tools, leaving the agent unable to use it 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 single parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema coverage and the description merely labels it as 'JSON string of arguments' without explaining what keys are expected (e.g., issue IDs, sprint ID). No value added beyond the 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?
The description only restates the tool name as 'Jira connector operation add_to_sprint' without explaining what the operation actually does. It fails to specify that it adds issues to an existing sprint, leaving the purpose 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other Jira sprint tools like jira_create_sprint, jira_start_sprint, or jira_get_sprint_issues. The description provides no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions routing and authorization (JWT, tenant, company scope), but does not disclose that the tool creates a subtask (a write operation), what side effects occur, or any important behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose mutation.
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 (3 sentences) and uses little space, but it is not front-loaded with purpose. The first two sentences are technical routing details rather than a clear statement of functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a creation tool with an output schema and no required parameters, the description should explain what is created, whether a parent issue is needed, and what the return value represents. It provides none of this context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and title. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it offers no details on expected structure or keys.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Jira connector operation `create_subtask`' without defining what a subtask is or how it differs from creating an issue. It adds no functional purpose beyond the name itself.
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 like `jira_create_issue` or `jira_add_comment`. The description lacks any 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?
The description mentions routing through `/api/tools/invoke` with JWT/tenant/company scope, but provides no information about side effects, read-only nature, rate limits, or required permissions. Without annotations, the burden falls on the description, which 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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the operation name, so it is relatively concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, making it under-specified rather than efficiently complete.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain the tool's core purpose or how to use the `arguments` parameter. It lacks the context needed for an agent to invoke it correctly, especially given the opaque string parameter.
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 single parameter `arguments` is described as "JSON string of arguments for the connector operation," which adds minimal value beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain what keys or values are valid in the JSON, leaving the agent guessing.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ("Jira connector operation `list_issue_types`") without specifying what issue types are or differentiating it from other Jira list tools like jira_list_projects. It adds technical routing context but fails to clearly articulate the tool's function.
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. With sibling tools like jira_list_projects, jira_list_transitions, etc., the agent receives no hints about the appropriate context for listing issue types.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it fails to describe what the tool actually does (e.g., generates, retrieves, or modifies a packet), what side effects occur, or what permissions are required. The agent is left with no understanding of the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes unnecessary implementation details about routing and scope. The first line redundantly restates the tool name. While not overly verbose, it could be more concise and focused on the tool's actual purpose.
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 having an output schema (context signal indicates existence), the description fails to explain the tool's core function, what an 'employment agreement packet' is, or how the parameters map to it. The parameter descriptions are insufficient, leaving the agent with significant knowledge gaps.
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%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics: 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs. These are vague and do not clarify expected format or content, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
The name suggests it relates to employment agreement packets, but the description merely states 'Run the legal domain agent action `employment_agreement_packet`.' This is a tautology that restates the name without clarifying the tool's function. It does not differentiate from sibling packet tools like legal_nda_packet or legal_sales_agreement_packet.
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 focuses on technical routing details (dispatcher, JWT, tenant, company scope) which are not actionable usage guidelines. No context is given for appropriate scenarios 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but omits critical information such as side effects (e.g., whether the loop creates/modifies data), idempotency, or output behavior. The agent cannot assess risks or consequences.
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 includes a structured 'Args' section, but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. Every sentence is present, but the content is inadequate for the tool's purpose.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return values or what the tool accomplishes. For a complex loop that likely involves contract risk assessment, the context is severely lacking. The agent cannot understand the tool's full impact or output.
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 describes 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string', which adds minimal meaning. No format, expected values, or examples are provided, leaving the agent uncertain about what constitutes valid inputs.
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?
Description states 'Run the legal domain agent action risk_contract_protection_loop' which is a specific verb-resource pair, but it does not explain what the action does. It fails to distinguish from siblings like legal_contract_review or legal_breach_response, leaving the agent uncertain about when to invoke this tool.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to decide when this 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 behavior. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher and scope, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it describe idempotency or error behavior. This is insufficient for safe 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 short but wastes the first sentence on a tautology. The routing info and parameter list are appropriately structured. It is concise, but the brevity sacrifices critical content, earning a middle score.
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 presence of an output schema (undisclosed in description), the tool is a search action that requires context (trademark clearance) which is entirely missing. The description does not explain what the search does, what constitutes valid inputs, or what the output represents, leaving the agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, but lacks details on expected formats, constraints, or examples. The agent receives only minimal guidance beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Run the legal domain agent action `tm_clearance_search`') without explaining what a trademark clearance search entails. It fails to differentiate from other legal tools or provide a clear, specific purpose.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without selection 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, description carries full burden. It fails to disclose key behaviors: what gets created, required permissions, or response format. Only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope.
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?
Short three sentences; first sentence is redundant (restates name). Routing information may be unnecessary for tool selection. Could be more focused.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to specify what chat platform (Teams, Outlook, etc.) or message type, leaving the agent with insufficient context. Sibling teams_post_chat_message suggests Teams, but is not clarified.
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 says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify expected fields or format, adding minimal value beyond the schema itself.
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?
Description merely restates the tool name as 'Microsoft connector operation post_chat_message' without explaining what it does (e.g., send a Teams chat message, reply, etc.). The routing info adds no purpose clarity.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like teams_post_chat_message or microsoft_send_email. No context or exclusions 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing details but does not describe side effects (e.g., board creation), required permissions, or whether the operation is destructive. The agent cannot infer 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 short but includes unnecessary routing information. While not overly verbose, it sacrifices utility for brevity and does not front-load the essential purpose.
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 creates a board (a complex action), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments, what the output contains, or any constraints. 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described only as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no guidance on valid argument structure or required fields.
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?
The description only states it is a Monday connector operation named create_board, but does not clarify that it creates a board in Monday.com. This is a vague restatement of the tool name without distinguishing it from siblings like monday_archive_board or monday_create_group.
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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description focuses on routing infrastructure, not on the conditions or contexts that favor using create_board.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, if it returns all accounts or supports pagination, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotations.
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 (two sentences) but the first sentence is a tautology and the second focuses on routing rather than tool functionality. It is concise in word count but not effectively structured to convey value to 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return structure might be documented there, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., a list of accounts) or how to use the 'arguments' parameter. For a list operation, critical context is missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described only as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. The schema already indicates it is a string with default '{}', and the description adds no detail about what keys or values are expected. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but does not.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name as 'Myob connector operation list_accounts' without specifying what 'accounts' refers to (e.g., chart of accounts, bank accounts). It adds routing infrastructure details that do not clarify the tool's core purpose, and fails to distinguish it from sibling myob tools like myob_list_contacts or myob_list_invoices.
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 scenarios where listing accounts is appropriate, nor any exclusions or references to other list tools among the siblings.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing infrastructure (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits critical behaviors like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. The agent receives no insight into what happens during 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 very short (three sentences) and avoids fluff, but it is too brief to be useful. It front-loads the name and infrastructure details rather than actionable guidance.
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 presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It lacks essential context for a listing tool, such as default sorting, filtering capabilities, or common use cases.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is a generic JSON string with 0% schema description coverage. The description says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It fails to specify what keys/values are expected inside the JSON.
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?
The description states it is a 'connector operation list_invoices', which is essentially a tautology restating the name. It does not explain what invoices are being listed or provide any distinguishing features from sibling tools like myob_list_accounts.
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 filtering, scoping, or context where this tool is appropriate compared to other Myob list 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, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions routing and a generic 'arguments' parameter. It does not disclose what the operation does (e.g., appends children, requires block ID), any side effects, or permissions 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?
The description is short but wastes space on routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT...') that are irrelevant for an agent. It fails to include essential information about the tool's purpose and parameters.
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 having an output schema (inferred from context), the description does not hint at the return value or behavior. The combination of no annotations, vague parameter docs, and lack of usage context makes it incomplete for an agent to use 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%, so the description must explain the parameter meaning. It only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no value beyond the schema. The required fields within that JSON (e.g., block_id, children) are not documented.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name and mentions it's a Notion connector operation, but does not explicitly state that it appends child blocks to a parent block. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement, making it 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other Notion tools (e.g., notion_create_page, notion_update_block, notion_delete_block). An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone, which is 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses nothing about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or that it modifies state by completing an upload. Only trivial routing info is given.
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 front-loads irrelevant routing info instead of the tool's purpose. Every sentence could be more valuable, but it is not overly long.
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's complexity (file upload completion with a JSON argument) and the existence of an output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what arguments are needed, what the output represents, or how it fits into the upload workflow.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is documented as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. No details on required fields, format, or examples, despite 0% schema coverage.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Notion connector operation complete_file_upload' and adds routing details, but fails to explain what the operation does (e.g., finalizing a file upload). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like notion_create_file_upload or notion_get_file_upload.
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 prerequisites (e.g., requiring a prior notion_create_file_upload call) or context 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?
Description only mentions routing through an API path and authentication scopes. No disclosure of side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or other traits beyond what is implicitly known from the operation name. With no annotations, the description provides insufficient 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?
Description is short (3 sentences) with no fluff, but its brevity sacrifices informativeness. Structure is acceptable but front-loading is not leveraged.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks explanation of return values, success/failure indicators, or usage examples. For a creation tool, it is 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but the schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning; it doesn't specify expected keys or structure (e.g., URL, events).
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?
Description restates the operation name 'create_webhook' without explaining what a webhook is or what creating one does. No distinction from sibling tools like 'notion_delete_webhook' or 'notion_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 Guidelines1/5
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 scenarios for webhook creation are provided.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details, which are infrastructure rather than behavior. There is no information on side effects, permissions, or what happens to associated data when a view is deleted.
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 includes unnecessary routing information. It could be more effective by directly stating the action. However, it is not excessively 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?
For a deletion tool, the description omits critical context such as consequences, required permissions, and return value format. Even with an output schema present, the description fails to compensate for the lack of annotation and schema documentation.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, which adds minimal value beyond the schema. No details on expected keys, formats, or optionality are provided, despite schema description coverage being 0%.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Notion connector operation `delete_view`', providing no additional context on what deleting a view entails. It is a tautology that does not differentiate the tool from siblings like notion_create_view or notion_archive_page.
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, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The description is silent on 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, yet the description fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. It only mentions routing details irrelevant to behavioral understanding.
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 contains redundant routing information and fails to efficiently convey purpose. Several sentences do not earn their place and could be omitted.
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 having an output schema, the description omits what the tool returns. It does not explain argument structure or address the context of 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described only as a JSON string for the connector operation, adding no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not clarify required fields or format.
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?
The description only states 'get_user' as the operation name without explaining what it does. It does not specify that it retrieves a Notion user or differentiate from other notion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. other tools like notion_get_self or clio_get_user. 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or the effect on page hierarchy—only technical routing details are given.
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 includes irrelevant technical routing details. The first sentence is a tautology, and the second provides infrastructure info that doesn't help the agent understand the tool's function. It could be more concise and front-loaded.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites for moving a page, or limitations. It feels incomplete for a non-trivial operation like moving a page in Notion.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain expected structure (e.g., page_id, parent_id) but does not.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Notion connector operation `move_page`' without explaining what moving a page entails or distinguishing it from sibling tools like notion_archive_page or notion_trash_page. The purpose is not clarified beyond the name itself.
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 lacks any context about appropriate use cases or conditions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when invoked. The only information is routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), which are not behavioral.
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 includes unnecessary routing information ('/api/tools/invoke' etc.) that is likely irrelevant for tool selection. It could be more focused on the operation's purpose.
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 having an output schema (unseen), the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to structure the input arguments. It leaves significant gaps for a tool with only one parameter.
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 compensate but only states 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying valid keys, format, or expected structure. This adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description repeats the tool name 'oauth_introspect' and mentions it's a 'Notion connector operation' but does not explain what the operation does. It fails to clarify that it inspects OAuth tokens or its role compared to sibling tools like notion_oauth_revoke.
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. The description lacks any context about scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent with no direction.
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 carries the full burden. It mentions routing and scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or whether the operation is read-only. This lacks sufficient behavioral detail.
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 front-loads technical routing details that may not be actionable for tool selection. It could be more concise by omitting the routing line and focusing on functional behavior. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what data the entity contains, what arguments are expected, or what the tool returns. For a potentially complex QuickBooks operation, this leaves the agent 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds minimal clarification that the string is JSON, which is not explicit from the schema (type 'string'). However, with 0% schema description coverage and no further detail on expected structure, the description does not adequately compensate.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('get_entity') without specifying what entity type is retrieved or the operation's scope. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'quickbooks_list_entities' or 'quickbooks_get_invoice', leaving the purpose vague.
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 such as 'quickbooks_list_entities' (to list all entities) or 'quickbooks_get_invoice' (to get a specific invoice). The description offers no context 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions routing and authentication scope, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral insight.
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 three sentences and relatively concise, but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. It could be more efficient by including substantive information about the tool's function.
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 tool, the description should state what is being listed (deposits) and ideally mention the output. It fails to do both. Even with an output schema, the description should provide high-level context, which is missing.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds basic context but is too vague. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not clarify the structure or required fields of the JSON, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('list_deposits') and notes it's a Quickbooks connector operation, but does not explicitly state that it lists deposits or what a deposit represents. The purpose is implied but not clarified, making it vague.
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 such as quickbooks_list_payments or quickbooks_list_invoices. The description lacks any context about typical use cases 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 behavioral traits such as read-only status, pagination, filtering, or scope of results. The routing details do not compensate for missing 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but front-loads technical routing information that is not the primary purpose. It lacks a clear statement of what the tool does, wasting space on implementation details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and lack of output schema description, the tool is incomplete. It does not cover return format, pagination, or filtering, which are typical for list operations. The sibling tools indicate many similar QuickBooks list operations, but no differentiation is provided.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is a string with no description of its expected structure or content. The schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about how to format the arguments for the connector operation.
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?
The description only provides technical routing details and does not explicitly state that the tool lists vendor credits. The name hints at the purpose, but the description fails to articulate the core function.
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 other QuickBooks list tools (e.g., list_bills, list_invoices). There is no mention of prerequisites or alternative 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?
Only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). Lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, data returned, or any side effects. No annotations 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?
Short but not concise in conveying useful information. The phrase 'Quickbooks connector operation' is redundant and front-loads no actionable 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?
Even with a single parameter and an output schema, the description omits core functionality entirely. An agent cannot determine what this tool does, when to use it, or what to expect as output.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no meaning beyond the input schema's type and default. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name as a 'Quickbooks connector operation' without stating what the operation does (e.g., retrieve payroll company info). It fails to provide a specific verb and resource, and does not help distinguish from sibling tools like quickbooks_company_info.
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 other QuickBooks tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or 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?
The description gives minimal behavioral information, only noting that it routes through an API under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not disclose that the tool likely reads query results, nor does it mention any safety or mutability aspects. Since no annotations are provided, the description should have filled this gap but fails to do so.
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 only a few lines, which is structurally fine. However, the content is too sparse to be useful; it prioritizes brevity over informativeness. An adequate description would be similarly concise but more 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's complexity (one parameter, no annotations, output schema not described), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the return value, required input structure, or any constraints, leaving too much unspecified for an agent to use 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful information beyond the schema. The description does not specify what keys the JSON should contain (e.g., jobId), making it impossible for an agent to construct the correct input. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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?
The description merely states 'Salesforce connector operation bulk_query_results' and mentions routing through an API, but does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves results of a bulk query. The name implies this, but the description lacks clarity and does not differentiate from siblings like salesforce_bulk_query_create or salesforce_bulk_query_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 explain prerequisites, context, or conditions under which this tool should be invoked, leaving the agent without decision-making information.
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 present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive, idempotency, rate limits, or what side effects occur. The routing info is generic and adds no 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 brief (two sentences plus an Args line) but lacks essential content. The first sentence restates the tool name without adding clarity. It could be more concise if it focused on functional description rather than routing 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?
The description omits what the tool returns (despite context indicating an output schema exists), how it behaves, and the semantics of the pipeline report. For a simple tool with one parameter, it should at least clarify the purpose and output.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but the description does not specify expected keys or structure. With 0% schema description coverage, this minimal addition does not sufficiently 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description vaguely states it's a Salesforce connector operation for pipeline_report, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., retrieve, generate, list). The name implies a report, but no verb or outcome is given. Sibling Salesforce tools like salesforce_bulk_* have more descriptive purposes, making this one 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other Salesforce tools or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions where this tool should or should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but no behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or what happens when invoked. Critical information 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 short but includes technical routing details that may be irrelevant for selection. It could be more focused on purpose and usage. Information is not front-loaded.
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 a Slack operation, the description lacks essential context about triggers, return values, or effect. Even with an output schema, the behavioral aspects are missing. Incomplete for effective 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description merely says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no detail about valid keys or expected structure. The agent cannot know what to pass.
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?
The description states it is a Slack connector operation 'app_mention' but does not explain what 'app_mention' does. The purpose is unclear; it could be sending a mention, listening for mentions, or something else. No verb or action is described.
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 other Slack tools (e.g., slack_post_message, slack_search_messages). No alternatives or context provided. The description does not help the agent decide.
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 behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and scope, not whether the tool creates, reads, or mutates anything. No info on side effects, auth needs, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but not concise in a helpful way. It wastes space on routing details that may be obvious, omitting the actual functional description. Could be reorganized to front-load purpose.
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 Slack tools and the lack of annotations, schema details, and output explanation, the description is severely incomplete. An AI agent cannot determine when or how to use this tool based on this description alone.
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 meaningful information. It merely states that 'arguments' is a JSON string without specifying what fields or values are expected. Completely fails to compensate for schema gaps.
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?
The description only labels it as a 'Slack connector operation' without explaining what 'create_conversation_canvas' actually does. The name gives a vague hint but doesn't differentiate from siblings like slack_create_canvas. No verb-resource 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. No context about prerequisites, comparisons, or exclusions. The description is purely technical routing.
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 only notes the routing path ('/api/tools/invoke') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, data scope, pagination, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it largely fails to provide useful transparency.
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 but lacks substance; it is not front-loaded with critical information. Each sentence is low-value and does not earn its place, making it under-specified rather than appropriately 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits the fundamental purpose and behavior of the tool. For a tool with low complexity, it is completely inadequate, leaving an agent with no actionable understanding.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but no details on expected keys or format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only adds minimal generic context.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name ('Slack connector operation `list_scheduled_messages`') without stating what it does. It does not clarify that it retrieves a list of scheduled messages in Slack, leaving the purpose ambiguous. This is essentially a tautology of the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., slack_delete_scheduled_message, slack_search_messages). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that the tool modifies a channel (destructive), requires permissions, or what the outcome is. This is a critical gap.
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 includes unnecessary routing details (e.g., the /api/tools/invoke path) while missing essential functional information. It could be more concise and focused by stating the tool's actual purpose.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, expected input structure, or return values, even though an output schema exists. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based solely on the description.
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 schema's single parameter 'arguments' has 0% description coverage and only a default of '{}'. The description adds only 'JSON string of arguments' with no details on expected structure or keys, offering minimal value beyond the 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?
The description repeats the tool name ('set_channel_purpose') without explaining that it sets the purpose of a Slack channel. It is essentially a tautology and provides no differentiation from sibling tools like slack_set_channel_topic.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or how it compares to other Slack channel modification 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?
Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication scope, but fails to confirm read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or output behavior. The name implies listing, but the description does not explicitly state it is safe or 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but inefficient: it includes redundant routing details while omitting essential purpose and parameter semantics. It is under-specified rather than 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description still fails to provide adequate context for invoking the tool correctly. Input semantics are missing, and the overall completeness is low given the tool's apparent simplicity.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should document what keys the JSON expects, but it does not. This leaves the agent with no clue about valid inputs.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation usergroups_list' without providing a clear purpose or specific verb+resource. It does not explain what listing user groups entails or how it differs from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like slack_usergroups_users_list. The description lacks any context about prerequisite conditions 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 description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The generic routing info adds no value.
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 wastes space on generic routing details common to all tools. It fails to provide essential functional information, making it under-specified rather than 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 presence of an output schema and the need to understand what the tool does, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the operation, required inputs, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent without enough 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?
Input schema has one parameter 'arguments' (JSON string) with 0% description coverage. The description only restates 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying expected keys or format, offering minimal help beyond the 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?
Description merely states the tool name and that it's a 'connector operation' without explaining what 'add_layout_contact' does. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools like smokeball_create_contact or smokeball_get_layout_contacts; purpose is vague and confusing.
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 instance, it doesn't clarify whether this is for adding a contact to a layout or creating a new contact; without context, agent cannot decide when to invoke 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 only mentions routing and authentication scope but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or data returned.
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 at two sentences, but it lacks substantive content. While brief, it could be improved by adding more useful information 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?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. However, the description fails to provide essential context about input parameter format, required fields, or distinguishing features among many sibling Smokeball tools.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for connector arguments, but no expected keys or structure are given. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description repeats the tool name 'get_matter' and states it's a Smokeball connector operation, but does not explicitly state what the tool does. The routing information does not clarify purpose; the agent must infer from the name alone.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smokeball_get_matter_items or smokeball_list_matters. No prerequisites, scenarios, 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 carries full burden but only mentions routing and authentication scope. It omits behavioral details like read/write nature, side effects, 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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the name and routing, but lacks substance. It is concise but not effectively structured.
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 integrated search and many sibling search tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does or what the arguments JSON should contain.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which barely adds to the schema's type and default. Schema coverage is 0% (no param descriptions), so description should compensate but does not.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Smokeball connector operation integrated_search' without specifying what is searched or what the tool does. It fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'smokeball_search'.
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 like 'smokeball_search'. The description gives no 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 carries the full burden. It only mentions routing details and does not disclose read-only nature, authorization requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The agent is left uninformed about important 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 short but includes unnecessary routing details (e.g., 'Routes through /api/tools/invoke ...') that distract from the core purpose. It could be more concise and front-loaded with the key action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description could reference it to explain return values, but it does not. The description lacks essential context about filtering, ordering, and expected results, leaving the agent underinformed for a simple 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described generically as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what specific arguments are expected for listing time entries, but it adds almost no meaningful information beyond the 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?
The description mostly restates the tool name ('Smokeball connector operation `list_time_entries`') and includes irrelevant routing details. It lacks a clear, standalone statement of what the tool does, making it close to a tautology.
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 or when not to use this tool. There is no comparison to sibling tools like `smokeball_create_time_entry` or other smokeball list operations, so the agent has no help in selecting the correct tool.
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. The description mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose side effects, safety, read/write nature, or rate limits. For a solver action, the behavioral footprint is unclear.
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 no fluff, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The opening line is tautological (restates the action name), and the parameter descriptions are terse. It is acceptable in length but not in 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?
Given the output schema exists (but its content is unknown), the description does not describe return values. Parameter coverage is minimal. For a specialized solver action, the description lacks essential context about expected inputs, outputs, and behavior.
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 adds minimal meaning over the schema: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' are generic. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate with richer guidance, but it does not explain expected format, constraints, or examples.
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?
Description states 'Run the solver domain agent action `constraint_satisfaction`' but does not explain what constraint satisfaction means or how it differs from sibling tools like solver_schedule_optimization or solver_solve_optimization. The purpose is vague and fails to convey the specific functionality.
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. There are no prerequisites, context cues, or examples to help the agent decide to invoke 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?
The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some authentication context, but fails to disclose read-only nature, permissions, pagination, or any side effects. Without annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 lines) and front-loaded with the operation name, but it is under-specified. It sacrifices essential information for brevity, resulting in mediocre 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not clarify what the tool retrieves (e.g., payout details, date ranges, filters) or how to use the arguments parameter effectively. It is incomplete 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?
The schema has 0% coverage, and the description only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This does not specify valid argument keys, types, or constraints, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond the parameter name.
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?
The description states 'Square connector operation `list_payouts`' which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what listing payouts means in a clear, natural language. It lacks a specific verb and resource description, making it barely distinguishable from a tautology.
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 like stripe_list_payouts or paypal_list_payouts. 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, 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 short but contains redundancy (repeating the tool name) and includes low-value technical routing info. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and 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 financial report tool, the description is critically incomplete. It lacks output schema documentation, parameter guidance, and any description of the report's content or purpose. The output schema exists but is not leveraged.
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 single parameter 'arguments' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not clarify what should be passed in the JSON string (e.g., date range, report parameters). This leaves the agent unable to construct correct input.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation bank_summary_report' without explaining what the tool does (e.g., retrieves a bank summary report). It does not differentiate from sibling Xero report tools like xero_balance_sheet_report or xero_cash_flow_report.
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 other Xero report tools, nor any prerequisites or typical scenarios for invoking 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 should disclose behavioral traits but only provides routing infrastructure details. It does not indicate that this is a write operation that modifies financial records, nor does it warn about consequences or required permissions.
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 not optimally structured. It includes unnecessary routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that do not aid tool selection, while omitting critical functional information. It is concise in word count but wasteful in 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 financial nature of depreciation and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain the tool's effect, required inputs, output, or safety considerations, making it essentially unusable 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description (0% coverage). The description only says it contains 'arguments for the connector operation', adding no structure, required keys, or examples. This leaves the agent completely unable to form a correct invocation.
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?
The description only restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation book_depreciation' without explaining what booking depreciation entails. It does not clarify the specific accounting action, such as recording depreciation for an asset, and offers no distinction from sibling tools like xero_create_asset or xero_dispose_asset.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., existing asset), or when not to use it, leaving the agent without any decision-making 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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing details but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what it retrieves, or any side effects. The agent cannot assess safety or context.
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 not informative enough to earn its place. It front-loads routing info rather than the tool's purpose, making it inefficient for an agent to quickly understand usage.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks any explanation of what the tool does, its input semantics, or expected results. The agent cannot determine when or how to invoke this tool 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%, and the description adds no meaningful parameter guidance. It only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of connector arguments, without describing valid keys or formats, leaving the agent completely uninformed.
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?
The description restates the tool name 'get_file' without specifying what file is retrieved or from where. It only mentions that it is a Xero connector operation, providing no verb-resource clarity or differentiation from sibling tools like xero_upload_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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or any reference to 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but not whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or authentication specifics. The agent cannot infer the tool's safety profile.
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 front-loaded, but it sacrifices essential information. Every sentence is present but some are unnecessary (routing details) while critical info is 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not reference it or explain the return value. The parameter is underspecified. For a simple get tool, the description should at least clarify what the 'arguments' JSON should contain.
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%, so the description must compensate. It says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which is too generic. It fails to specify the expected structure (e.g., invoice ID) or provide examples, leaving the agent guessing.
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?
The description only states 'get_invoice' without explaining what it retrieves or how it differs from other Xero tools like xero_list_invoices. It provides no specific purpose beyond the name, bordering on tautology.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xero_list_invoices or other retrieval tools. The description lacks any context about appropriate usage scenarios.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention read-only nature, required permissions, side effects, or output characteristics. The description only covers technical routing.
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 relatively short (two sentences), but the first sentence is redundant (repeats name and platform tool). The routing information in the second sentence could be more concisely stated. It is adequately structured but not front-loaded with core purpose.
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?
Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not explain the expected input format (JSON arguments) or any requirements for the tool. For a list operation with a complex argument, the description is insufficient for an agent to use 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described generically as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema coverage, this adds minimal meaning beyond the schema and does not specify expected keys or structure for listing currencies.
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?
The description does not explicitly state that the tool lists available currencies from Xero. It primarily repeats the tool name and describes routing details. The purpose is implied by the name but not reinforced in the description.
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., other xero_list_* tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when it is appropriate to invoke this tool.
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 routing and authentication scope but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. Behavioral traits are largely 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 short but includes technical routing details that are not essential for understanding the tool's purpose. It could be more concise and front-loaded with functional 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's simplicity and lack of annotations, the description still fails to specify what entity's history is listed. Among many sibling xero tools, this omission makes it difficult to determine when to 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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description says it's a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding minimal meaning. It does not document expected keys or structure within the JSON, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description states it's a 'list_history' operation but does not specify what history is being retrieved (e.g., invoice history, contact history). This is vague and fails to distinguish it from other xero list tools like xero_list_invoices or xero_list_contacts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
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 the full burden. It only mentions routing and does not disclose that it is a read-only operation, what side effects exist, rate limits, or output characteristics. The agent gets no behavioral insight.
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 wastes space on routing details that may not be critical. The core purpose is not front-loaded; the name and routing are repeated.
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 zero schema coverage and no output schema details, the description should specify return values, filtering options, and scope. It provides none, leaving the agent 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, which adds minimal value over the schema. The description does not explain expected keys or structure, leaving the agent to guess how to construct the payload.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name and adds routing information. It does not explicitly state what listing payroll AU payruns means or differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_payroll_au_employees.
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, and no context about valid 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 must communicate behavior. It only mentions routing via /api/tools/invoke and authentication scope. No details on whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or its effects on Xero 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 short but includes routing details that may be redundant for an AI agent. It is not well-structured; important info is 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?
As an update tool with many siblings, the description lacks completeness. No output description despite an output schema. It does not help the agent select or invoke 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?
The single 'arguments' parameter lacks schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description merely says it's a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying expected keys or format, adding little meaning beyond the 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?
The description states it's an 'update_tracking_options' operation but doesn't explain what tracking options are or what updating entails. It fails to distinguish from siblings like xero_create_tracking_option or xero_update_tracking_category, leaving purpose unclear.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 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?
The description discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or consequences of the operation. With no annotations provided, the description fails to inform the agent about what happens during execution.
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 (3 sentences) but wastes a sentence on routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that may not aid tool selection. It is not well front-loaded; the first sentence is the least informative. Still, it avoids verbosity.
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 that the tool has an output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fields are required in arguments, what the operation does in detail, or what the response contains. For an 'add employee' operation, this is grossly insufficient.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by detailing expected JSON structure, but it does not.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as a 'connector operation add_employee' without explaining what adding an employee entails or what specific employee data is created. It lacks a clear verb-resource statement, making it only slightly more informative than a tautology.
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, what prerequisites are needed, or how it differs from alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, limitations, or comparisons to sibling 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, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read vs. write, required permissions, side effects). It only states it is a connector operation, offering no insight into its behavior.
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 short, it is not well-structured: the purpose is buried in a generic connector note, and key information (what the tool does) is missing. A concise but informative description would be 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the description still fails to provide enough context. It does not explain what document is being retrieved, what the output contains, or any constraints.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaningful information beyond what the schema already shows (a string with default '{}'). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to clarify what arguments are expected.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Clio connector operation get_document') without explaining what the tool actually does, e.g., retrieving a specific document by ID or other criteria. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like clio_get_contact or clio_get_matter.
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 other similar tools (e.g., clio_list_documents, clio_upload_document). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication scope, but fails to describe whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. This is insufficient for informed 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 relatively concise at three sentences, but the first two are verbose (repeating the name and routing). Some phrases could be removed without losing information, but the length is not excessive.
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?
The tool has a generic arguments parameter and no detailed parameter descriptions. Even though an output schema exists, the description does not guide the agent on input requirements or output expectations. Among many sibling tools, this lack of completeness hinders 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string with no further specification. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaningful structure (e.g., required fields like matter_id). The agent has no indication of what to include in the arguments.
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?
Description only restates the name 'get_matter' without explaining the tool's purpose. It does not specify what a matter is or what the tool retrieves, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the name alone. Lacks a clear verb+resource definition.
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 clio_list_matters or clio_get_contact. The description provides no context for selection, making it difficult for an agent to decide appropriately.
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 mentions technical routing (JWT, tenant, scope) but does not clarify side effects, required permissions, or whether it is a safe read operation. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.
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 includes unnecessary technical routing details that are likely better placed in configuration. It suffers from under-specification rather than true conciseness, failing to earn its limited space.
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 parameter model and presence of an output schema, the description should explain the return value or behavior. It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail about expected keys or structure.
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?
The description states it is a 'get_user' operation, which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify which user (e.g., by ID or current user) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like clio_get_contact or clio_list_users.
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 prerequisites, when not to use it, or comparison to clio_list_users or other 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?
No annotations exist, and the description only states that the tool routes through an internal endpoint. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what authorization is needed, or error behaviors (e.g., if webhook not found).
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, but it is not effectively concise—it omits critical information needed to use the tool. A few sentences could clarify purpose and parameters.
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 (get a webhook), the description should at minimum state that it retrieves a webhook by ID and describe the expected input format. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments, but the description does not specify which keys (e.g., 'webhook_id') are expected. With 0% schema coverage, this adds minimal meaning beyond the schema type.
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?
The description restates the tool name 'get_webhook' and mentions it's a Clio connector operation, but does not specify what the tool retrieves (e.g., a webhook by ID) or differentiate it from clio_list_webhooks. It lacks a clear verb+resource statement.
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 instead of alternatives like clio_list_webhooks or clio_create_webhook. There is no context about prerequisites or preferred 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?
The description mentions routing through an API endpoint with JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some authentication context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns paginated results, or any other behavioral traits like rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes a routing detail that is likely irrelevant for tool selection. While it is concise, it lacks critical information, making the conciseness detrimental.
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 that this is a list operation with an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return format, pagination behavior, or any constraints on the list, leaving the agent without sufficient 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but fails to explain what arguments are expected.
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 is a 'list' operation for 'custom actions', which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what custom actions are or what the list returns, and it lacks differentiation from other list tools beyond the resource 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for when to select this tool over other Clio 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 should disclose behavioral aspects like read-only nature, side effects, or authentication requirements. It only mentions JWT scope routing, which is generic. It does not state whether listing is safe or if it triggers any actions.
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 wastes space on routing details that are likely standard. The first sentence repeats the title. No effort is made to front-load the purpose or organize information for quick comprehension.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to explain the tool's role and when it is appropriate. It lacks context about Clio documents, the scope of results, and how it fits with other tools. The description is not complete enough for an agent to use it reliably.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to specify what keys or values the JSON should contain, leaving the agent uninformed.
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?
The description states the operation name ('list_documents') and platform tool identifier, but does not explain what listing documents means in the context of Clio. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like clio_get_document or clio_list_folders, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name alone.
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, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to other listing or document-related 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. The description only mentions routing info, not behavioral traits like idempotency, pagination, or side effects. A list operation typically should disclose read-only nature, but it does not.
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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices usefulness. It is concise but not informative enough.
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 low complexity (1 parameter) and no annotations, the description should cover basic context like the nature of payments listed. It does not, leaving the agent guessing about filters or expected output.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which adds nothing beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain what arguments are valid.
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 'list payments' which is clear but overly generic. It does not specify what kind of payments (e.g., incoming, outgoing, from invoices) and lacks differentiation from other clio_list_ tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 clio_list_bills or clio_list_invoices. The description provides no 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 carries full burden. It mentions routing and auth scope but does not disclose critical traits like whether the tool is read-only, mutable, or what side effects occur. The output schema exists but is not described.
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 includes a parameter list, but brevity sacrifices clarity. It is structured but lacks substance for effective use.
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, 0% schema coverage, and existence of sibling pricing tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, making it nearly unusable for an 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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It describes `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal meaning. There is no detail on expected input structure or examples.
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?
The description only says 'Run the commerce domain agent action `pricing_landscape`.' which is nearly tautological—it does not explain what the action does. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like commerce_price_optimization_run or commerce_pricing_intelligence.
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 only covers routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to specify appropriate 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?
The description discloses that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any behavioral traits. No annotations exist to supplement this.
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, uses clear paragraphs and a bullet list for arguments. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to scan.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns. It also lacks context about the product graph domain, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the 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 adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, with 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient to clarify expected formats, constraints, or examples.
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?
The description states 'Run the commerce domain agent action `product_graph_query`' but does not explain what the action does. The name suggests querying a product graph, but no details are provided to distinguish it from similar commerce tools like commerce_product_analysis or commerce_catalog_sync.
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 given on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions routing and authentication scope, but no conditional usage 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?
The description mentions routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher and scoping under JWT, tenant, and company, which provides minimal behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or any side effects, rate limits, or additional behaviors. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for the action, one for routing, then an args list. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. However, the concise nature comes at the cost of missing essential details, but it is well-structured.
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 name suggests sensor anomaly detection, the description fails to explain what anomaly detection does, what results to expect, or any prerequisites. Although it has an output schema (so return values are covered), the description lacks the core functional context needed for an agent to properly invoke 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%. The description adds minimal value: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' While it identifies the parameters, it does not explain valid values, required formats, or how they affect execution.
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?
The description states 'Run the engineering domain agent action sensor_anomaly_detection.' This is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no explanation of what anomaly detection entails. It does not clarify the specific resource or verb, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like engineering_chat or engineering_compare_model_versions.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Among many sibling engineering tools, there is no direction on when to choose this one.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, but does not reveal whether the action is read-only, destructive, requires permissions, or has 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but achieves this by omitting essential information. The technical routing detail about JWT and dispatcher is not helpful for an AI agent deciding whether to use this tool.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention return values or expected outcomes. Given the complexity of finance working capital analysis and many similar siblings, the description fails to provide sufficient context for accurate tool selection.
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 schema coverage is 0%, yet the description only duplicates schema field names. 'message' is described as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding no substantive meaning or constraints beyond the 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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_qoe_working_capital', which is a tautology that does not explain what the action accomplishes. No verb or resource is defined beyond the tool name itself. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling finance tools like finance_working_capital_efficiency.
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 other finance tools. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this action 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 should disclose safety, side effects, and access requirements. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not state if the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. No behavioral traits are revealed.
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 front-loads implementation details (routing) rather than core purpose. It is adequately concise but could better prioritize what the tool does over how it is dispatched.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits what the tool returns. It lacks details on expected inputs (e.g., company, period) and output structure. The tool performs a specialized financial calculation, yet the description is too vague to guide correct 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, but provides no examples or structure. This leaves agents uncertain about valid inputs.
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?
The description states it runs a finance domain agent action but does not explain that the tool performs DuPont ratio analysis (decomposing return on equity). The purpose is inferred from the name, but the description lacks specificity about what the tool accomplishes.
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 sibling finance tools like finance_fsa_review or finance_peer_valuation_multiples. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or 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?
The description only mentions routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits critical behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, performance implications, or result ordering. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose key behaviors.
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 not refined; it wastes space on routing details that could be inferred from the platform. It is adequately structured with a header and args line, but lacks impactful content that earns each sentence.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (list of expense objects), nor does it address typical expectations for a list operation like filtering or sorting. The description is incomplete for practical 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is circular and uninformative. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the structure of the JSON or common options, but it does not.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('list expenses') without clarifying the specific scope or differentiating it from siblings like freshbooks_list_invoices. It lacks a verb+resource structure that would uniquely identify the tool's purpose beyond the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other Freshbooks list operations (e.g., invoices, payments). The description does not mention any prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where list_expenses 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?
No annotations are present, and the description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) rather than behavioral traits like side effects, read-only nature, permissions, or rate limits. The lack of transparency forces the agent to guess the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes unnecessary routing path details (/api/tools/invoke) that are not relevant for selection or invocation. While somewhat focused, it could be more concise by omitting implementation specifics and focusing on function.
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 (one parameter, output schema present), the description should at least indicate what identifier is needed (e.g., workflow run ID) and what the logs represent. It fails to provide essential context, making it incomplete 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is a tautology. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful explanation of what fields the JSON should contain, leaving the agent unable to construct valid input.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Github connector operation get_workflow_run_logs') without specifying what the tool does beyond its naming. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like github_get_workflow_run or github_list_workflow_runs, leaving the agent to infer purpose solely from the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow run ID). The description omits context about the typical workflow of listing runs then fetching logs, which is critical for correct 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, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing but lacks disclosure of behavior: return type, authentication needs, safety (though likely read-only). 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 short (2 sentences) but wastes space on routing details rather than tool specifics. Adequate length but poor information density.
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 commits listing tool, lacks context on required parameters, filtering, or output. Despite having an output schema, no usage context is provided.
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 description only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments' without detailing expected keys (e.g., repo, owner, sha). Fails to add meaning beyond the 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?
The description only states it is a 'list_commits' operation but does not specify the resource (e.g., repository, branch) or how it differs from sibling tools like github_list_branches. The purpose is 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, prerequisites, or context. The description provides no decision framework for the agent.
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 notes routing and authentication. It fails to disclose read-only behavior, rate limits, or response size implications, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.
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 (three sentences) but wastes space on routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') that are likely generic. It achieves conciseness but not 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?
Given the tool's purpose (list deployments) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least mention what is returned (e.g., 'Returns a list of deployments') and hint at required arguments. It does neither, 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 coverage is 0%, yet the description only restates the schema property ('arguments: JSON string of arguments') without specifying expected fields like repository, owner, or pagination. This adds no meaning beyond the 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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Github connector operation `list_deployments`', providing no explanation of what deployments are or what listing them entails. It adds no value beyond the name itself.
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 other GitHub list tools (e.g., list_pull_requests, list_releases). The description lacks context for appropriate 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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication details, or argument requirements. The routing info is present but 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 short and front-loaded, but contains redundant phrases like 'Github connector operation' and 'platform tool'. It is acceptable but not optimally 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context such as the scope of environments (e.g., per repository), prerequisites, or how to specify the target. Incomplete for a list 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description merely repeats the parameter name and type ('JSON string of arguments') without specifying expected keys or structure. It adds no meaningful guidance.
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?
The description states it lists environments, but does not specify what scope (e.g., repository, organization). It is vague and indistinguishable from sibling list tools like github_list_deployments.
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 github_list_deployments. No mention of required context like a repository.
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 behavior. It only states routing and authentication details, which are generic. It fails to disclose that the tool is read-only, requires a pull request identifier in the arguments, or how errors are handled.
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 (three sentences) and avoids fluff, but most content is generic routing info that doesn't help understand the tool. It is concise 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?
Given the tool is a list operation likely requiring a pull request ID, the description lacks essential details about input and output. Even though an output schema exists, the input is woefully under-specified, making the description incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only repeats that `arguments` is a JSON string. It provides no information about the expected keys (e.g., owner, repo, pull_number), value formats, or examples, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'list_pull_request_files' without explaining what it lists (files of a pull request). It adds no definition beyond the name itself, making it vague for an agent unfamiliar with GitHub's API.
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 siblings like `github_list_pull_requests` or `github_get_pull_request`. There are no prerequisites, context conditions, or exclusion criteria 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 are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not describe side effects (e.g., state changes, irreversible actions, error conditions). 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but fails to convey critical information. It includes routing details that are likely generic, while omitting purpose and parameter details. It is under-specified rather than 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?
Despite having an output schema that doesn't need explanation, the tool is a mutation that advances an application. The description provides no information about required arguments, success/failure behavior, or typical usage. It is completely inadequate for the task complexity.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely states it's 'a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying expected keys, structures, or examples. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's a Greenhouse connector operation to 'advance an application', providing a verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'advance' means (e.g., moving to the next hiring stage), leaving ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling 'greenhouse_reject_application' by implication.
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 mention prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where it should or shouldn't be used. The only context is routing details.
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; description adds minimal behavioral context (routing, auth scope) but omits side effects, error conditions, or return behavior. For a generic runner, more transparency 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?
Description is short but includes technical routing details that may be irrelevant to the agent. Could be more focused on purpose and usage, but overall not excessively wordy.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. For a tool with two generic parameters, completeness 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?
Parameter descriptions ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string') merely restate the schema field names with no added meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so description fails to clarify valid formats, examples, or constraints.
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?
The description says 'Run the hr domain agent action hr_pulse' and describes routing through a dispatcher, but does not specify what the tool actually does (e.g., fetch HR metrics, run a report). Among siblings like hr_compliance_check or hr_leave_request, the purpose is vague and not differentiated.
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 alternative HR tools. The description only states operational routing details, not use scenarios or prerequisites.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing through a dispatcher and JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, what happens on failure, or any side effects. This is insufficient for behavioral understanding.
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 short (3 sentences plus bullet args) and front-loaded with the primary action. It is efficient, but the brevity sacrifices necessary explanatory content.
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 purpose is unclear and there is an output schema (unseen), the description fails to explain what the tool does, what the output represents, or how to use it effectively. It is incomplete for an agent to make an informed selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides minimal clarification but lacks detail on expected format or examples, rendering it adequate but not strong.
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?
The description states it 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `detect_waste`' but never explains what 'detect_waste' does or what detecting waste means in this context. The name suggests waste detection, but the purpose remains vague without connecting to any specific outcome or resource.
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 sibling tools like it_ops_analyze_cost or it_ops_rightsizing_recommendations. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases or 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and security, omitting whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has any side effects. 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 and front-loads the operation name, but it sacrifices content for brevity. It could convey more information without becoming overly long.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or behavior. A bulk transition tool requires explanation of what happens on success/failure, which is absent. The description is incomplete for its complexity.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's type. The description does not explain the expected JSON structure (e.g., issue IDs, target status), leaving the agent uninformed. Schema coverage is 0%, so more detail is needed.
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?
The description names the operation 'bulk_transition' but does not explicitly state that it transitions multiple Jira issues at once. It fails to distinguish from siblings like jira_transition_issue, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jira_transition_issue. There is no context about prerequisites or appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) but omits that deletion is destructive and irreversible. The agent is left uninformed about side effects or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes low-value implementation details (routing path) that could be omitted. It lacks a clear, front-loaded purpose statement. Could be more concise and structured.
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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to form the arguments JSON, nor does it provide examples or link to documentation. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without additional knowledge.
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 single parameter 'arguments' has a generic description that adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify expected keys (e.g., ruleId) or format. It provides zero additional semantic value.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Jira connector operation delete_automation_rule') without explicitly stating its purpose. It fails to describe what the tool does in plain language, making it a tautology.
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 jira_create_automation_rule or jira_list_automation_rules. The description lacks any 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.
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 behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description only mentions routing details, which are not behavioral.
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 (three sentences) but includes irrelevant routing information that does not aid tool selection or invocation. It could be more concise and focused.
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?
The description does not mention the return value or output format, though an output schema exists. Given the simplicity of the tool (list operation with one parameter), the description is incomplete and lacks essential 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the input schema. The schema does not describe the inner structure, and the description does not compensate.
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 restates the tool name as 'Jira connector operation list_webhooks' and provides the underlying platform tool identifier. It does not explicitly state what listing webhooks entails, but the name is self-explanatory for a list 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, when not to use it, or how it differs from alternatives. No usage context 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 must fully disclose behavior but only provides routing and authentication context. It does not mention that this tool mutates data (updates an issue), potential side effects, or return value details, 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 short (three sentences) but includes boilerplate routing info that may not be essential for the agent. It is not verbose, but the structure could be improved by front-loading the tool's actual purpose.
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 a single parameter and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks information on input format, expected behavior, result structure, and usage context, making it nearly unusable for an 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 states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments but fails to explain what keys or values that JSON should contain. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent guessing the required format.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Jira connector operation update_issue' without explaining what updating an issue entails. It fails to differentiate from siblings like jira_transition_issue or jira_update_custom_fields, leaving the agent unclear on the tool's specific function.
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 other Jira tools (e.g., jira_create_issue, jira_transition_issue). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or alternatives, making it hard for the agent to select the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or its side effects. The action name 'ediscovery' suggests a read-heavy operation, but this is not confirmed.
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 plus parameter docs. It is front-loaded and avoids fluff. However, the conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description should provide context about the tool's purpose and return values. It does not explain what ediscovery does, leaving a significant gap in understanding.
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 adds minimal semantics: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This explains what the parameters are but lacks examples, constraints, or specific usage details.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action ediscovery' but does not explain what ediscovery accomplishes. The verb 'run' is vague, and the tool's purpose remains unclear. It lacks a clear verb-resource description.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to use, when not to use, or any alternative 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 convey all behavioral traits. It mentions 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' but omits whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. It does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or potential output.
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 not concise in a helpful way; it lacks critical information. The first line repeats the tool name, and the subsequent lines provide generic routing context without actionable details. Each sentence does not earn its place.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns. With two optional parameters and no usage context, the description is incomplete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. It fails to explain the nature of the 'loop' or expected outcomes.
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 is the sole source for parameter meaning. It describes message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal clarity beyond the parameter names. No format, allowed values, or examples are given, leaving the agent uncertain about input requirements.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action incorporation_legal_setup_loop' but does not clarify what this action actually accomplishes (e.g., whether it performs incorporation setup, tests configuration, or returns status). The verb 'run' is generic, and 'free-text objective' is ambiguous. The tool name suggests a loop, but the description offers no specifics.
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 alternative legal tools (e.g., legal_incorporation_readiness, legal_breach_response). There is no description of preconditions, required prerequisites, or scenarios where this 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what the action does to the system. Essential traits remain hidden.
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 includes implementation detail ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that is not useful for an agent. The first sentence is repetitive. Parameter descriptions are 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 is part of a litigation hold family with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to explain what 'issue' means, what triggers it, or what happens after invocation. It is incomplete for an agent to use 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 describes message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string', but provides no format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema field names.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action litigation_hold_issue' but does not clarify what issuing a litigation hold entails. It is a vague, tautological description that restates the tool name without specifying the outcome or resource affected.
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 like legal_litigation_hold_loop, legal_litigation_hold_refresh, or legal_litigation_hold_release. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but discloses no behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or whether the action is destructive. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides 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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary detail, though it lacks important information. It is appropriately sized for its content level.
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 an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not describe what the action achieves, what outputs to expect, or how it differs from related tools. The agent lacks key context for correct selection and 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?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema titles: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. These descriptions are generic and do not clarify expected format or purpose. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description insufficiently compensates.
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?
The description states the tool runs the legal domain agent action 'litigation_hold_loop' and routes through a dispatcher, but does not explain what the action does. The purpose is vague and does not distinguish it from siblings like legal_litigation_hold_issue or legal_litigation_hold_release.
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. It does not specify scenarios or prerequisites for invoking this action.
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 only states generic routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose any specific behavioral traits such as whether this is a read or write operation, pagination behavior, or side effects. The tool's core behavior remains 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 very short but wastes space on generic boilerplate about routing through /api/tools/invoke, which applies to all connector tools and does not aid in tool selection. The essential information about what the tool does is missing, making it inefficient rather than 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's complexity (listing items in a SharePoint drive) and the presence of similar sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It offers no explanation of the required argument structure, no mention of output shape (even though an output schema exists), and no context on drive identification. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based on the given description.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with schema description coverage at 0%. The description adds no value beyond the schema field names; it does not explain what keys or values the JSON should contain (e.g., driveId, itemId). This is entirely insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 name suggests listing items in a SharePoint drive, but the description merely restates the name as 'Microsoft connector operation list_sharepoint_drive_items' without clarifying what constitutes a 'drive item' or how it differs from sibling tools like microsoft_list_drive_files. The purpose is vaguely inferred but 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. The description provides no context on prerequisites, required inputs, or typical use cases. It only mentions routing details, which are common to all connector 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?
Without annotations, the description must reveal behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and scope, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The name suggests a read operation, but no explicit 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 short (three sentences), but the first sentence is repetitive and the routing detail dominates. It is not efficiently front-loaded with essential purpose 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 low schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description should compensate by explaining the tool's output and usage. It mentions an output schema exists but does not describe what it returns. The tool's role (retrieving a specific board ID) is not communicated, leaving 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify required keys or expected values, leaving the agent completely uninformed.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as a 'connector operation' and provides routing details, but fails to explain what the tool actually does—e.g., retrieves an onboarding template board ID. The purpose is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 monday_get_board or monday_create_board. The description offers no context on prerequisites or 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 burden. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint, not behavioral traits like what the tool initiates, requires, or returns. No indication that this is likely the first step of a file upload workflow.
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 (3 sentences) but contains filler like routing details that are likely irrelevant for an AI agent. Minimal value per sentence.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's purpose or behavior. For a simple one-parameter tool, it leaves the agent guessing about what the file upload operation entails and how it fits with 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 only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds nothing beyond the schema name. The expected structure of the JSON is entirely undocumented.
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?
The description states 'Notion connector operation create_file_upload' but does not explain what the tool actually does. It lacks a verb and resource; for example, it does not say 'Creates a file upload in Notion.' This is vague and barely restates the 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. Sibling tools like notion_complete_file_upload and notion_send_file_upload suggest a multi-step process, but the description offers no context to distinguish them.
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 only states routing details and that the argument is a JSON string. It does not disclose whether the tool creates a view in Notion, whether it is destructive, or what the output contains, despite having an output schema.
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 under-informative. The first sentence is tautological, the second provides routing context irrelevant to tool selection, and the third gives a generic parameter description. Every sentence could be more 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 presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. The moderate complexity of Notion view creation is not addressed, and the lack of annotations leaves behavioral gaps.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal semantics. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by listing possible keys or constraints within that JSON string.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Notion connector operation create_view') without explaining what a view is or what creating a view does. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like notion_get_view, notion_list_views, or notion_update_view.
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 or not use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context that would help an agent choose between this and other view-related 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication details, but omits critical information such as whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, pagination behavior, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes extraneous routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.') that is likely unnecessary for tool invocation decisions. The core statement is one sentence; the rest could be omitted. It is somewhat concise but not optimally structured for 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?
Given the existence of an output schema, return values are partially covered, but the description lacks any context about the tool's behavior, parameter semantics, or usage. The tool is relatively complex (requires a JSON argument string) but the description provides almost no information to help an agent invoke it correctly, making it 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?
The input schema has a single 'arguments' parameter of type string with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely restates that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no details about expected structure, required keys, or examples. The agent cannot determine how to populate the arguments correctly without external knowledge of the Notion API.
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 is a 'list_views' operation for the Notion connector, clearly indicating the verb 'list' and resource 'views'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like notion_get_view or notion_query_view, nor does it explain what a view is or the scope of listing (e.g., views of a database). The name itself provides moderate clarity, but the description adds little additional context.
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 such as notion_get_view or notion_query_view. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where listing views is appropriate. The absence of any usage direction leaves the agent to infer solely from the name.
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 mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) and does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects it has. The agent cannot infer safety or permission requirements.
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 fails to prioritize useful information. It wastes space on routing details that are likely already handled by the platform, while omitting the tool's core purpose. It is not efficiently structured for 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?
Despite an existing output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It completely misses behavioral context, parameter details, and usage scenarios, making it inadequate for a connector 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should provide the structure or allowed keys, but it does not.
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?
The description states it is a 'Notion connector operation query_data_source' but does not explain what querying a data source accomplishes. It lacks a clear verb+resource description and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like notion_query_database.
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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making 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?
The description mentions routing through an endpoint under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description should offer more 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 concise but contains redundancy (e.g., 'Quickbooks connector operation ... (platform tool ...)'). It lacks a clear structure with sections or bullet points.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or what valid arguments are. Given the tool's complexity and the context signals, the description is incomplete.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no semantic value beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 lists credit memos, matching the tool name. However, it does not clarify what a credit memo is or distinguish this tool from other QuickBooks list tools like quickbooks_list_invoices or quickbooks_list_bills. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what data is returned, how the user is looked up (by email, ID, etc.), or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides almost no 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 short and front-loaded, with a clear structure: operation name, routing context, then parameter. However, the conciseness comes at the expense of crucial 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential details about the tool's functionality. It fails to explain what the tool does or how to use it effectively, leaving the agent uninformed.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but the description does not explain what keys or values are expected. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds minimal value.
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?
The description mostly restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation lookup_user' without specifying what the operation actually does. The name 'lookup_user' suggests looking up a user, but the description lacks a clear verb and resource. It does not distinguish from siblings like slack_users_info or slack_list_users.
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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using slack_lookup_user over other Slack user 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, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and JWT scope, not what the operation does or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about 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 short (two sentences plus a parameter line) and front-loaded with name/routing, but it lacks substance. It is not verbose but fails to convey useful information efficiently, earning a middle score for 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 complexity of Slack tools and many siblings, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose, when to use it, or how to structure arguments. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.
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 only parameter `arguments` is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value over the schema. No details on expected keys or structure, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid input.
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?
The description states it's a 'Slack connector operation `me_message`' but does not specify what the action does (send, retrieve, etc.) or the resource involved. The name suggests a self-message, but no differentiation from siblings like `slack_post_message` or `slack_open_dm`.
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 other Slack tools. The description lacks context for selection criteria or alternative suggestions.
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 mentions routing and authentication scope. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or has 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but redundant, repeating 'Slack connector operation' and lacking clear structure. It does not efficiently convey 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's operation (removing a pin), the description lacks necessary details such as required arguments, error conditions, or return format. The output schema exists but is not leveraged.
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 single parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds only that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which provides insufficient meaning beyond the 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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('pins_remove') without explaining what the operation does. It fails to specify the verb and resource, leaving the agent unclear about the tool's 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 is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like slack_pins_add or slack_list_reactions. The description offers no context about appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') but omits key traits such as message visibility (ephemeral vs permanent), required permissions, side effects, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes unnecessary routing boilerplate that could be omitted. It is adequately concise but sacrifices content for 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 that the tool has an output schema (not detailed in the description) and only one parameter, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how to properly invoke it. Important behavioural details are missing, making it insufficient for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It states that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string of arguments but does not specify which fields (e.g., channel, user, text) are expected, leaving the agent without actionable guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Slack connector operation post_ephemeral') and does not explain what posting an ephemeral message means or how it differs from other Slack messaging tools like slack_post_message. This leaves the agent without a clear understanding of the tool's 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., slack_post_message, slack_me_message). The description lacks context for appropriate use cases 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, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is generic. It does not disclose that this tool modifies a channel, requires authorization, or has 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 but includes redundant repetition of the tool name. It could be more efficient by omitting the first sentence and front-loading the actual function. It is not lengthy, but the structure wastes space on non-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?
For a simple tool like setting a channel topic, the description is insufficient. It omits what arguments are needed (channel ID, topic text) and does not reference the output schema. An agent would have to guess the required JSON structure.
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 one parameter 'arguments' with no description (0% coverage). The description merely restates 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no meaning. The format and expected fields (e.g., channel, topic) are entirely opaque.
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?
The description 'Slack connector operation set_channel_topic' essentially restates the name without explaining that it sets the topic of a Slack channel. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool slack_set_channel_purpose. The verb 'set' suggests modification but the resource 'topic' is not clarified.
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 slack_set_channel_purpose or slack_create_channel. The description does not mention any prerequisites, channel requirements, or expected 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?
The description discloses routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits critical behavioral information such as side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or response structure. With no annotations, the description should carry the full behavioral burden but fails to do so.
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 avoids verbosity, but the inclusion of technical routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke') adds noise without improving clarity for agent decision-making. It could be trimmed to focus on functional purpose.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides no context about what a layout is, what the operation returns, or how the argument string should be structured. With zero parameter guidance and no behavioral detail, the description is severely incomplete for an agent to use 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described only as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no further detail. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description does not compensate by listing expected fields, format, or examples, leaving the agent with no understanding of how to populate the parameter.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('create_layout') without explaining what a layout is in Smokeball or what creating one entails. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like smokeball_update_layout or smokeball_get_layout, leaving the agent with no domain-specific understanding of the tool's 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., smokeball_update_layout, smokeball_add_layout_contact). The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision-making 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The description lacks transparency about what the tool does.
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 (3 sentences) but wastes space on routing details that are unlikely to be useful for an AI agent. It could be more concise if it focused on purpose, but it sacrifices substance for 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 presence of an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it fails to even explain the tool's basic purpose. The tool is part of a suite with many siblings, and the lack of context makes it hard for an agent to select and invoke it 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 a single 'arguments' string parameter with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to this parameter, leaving the agent with no clue about what arguments are expected or how to structure them.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name 'get_matter_type' without defining what a matter type is or what the operation retrieves. It is vague and does not clearly distinguish this tool from similar Smokeball tools like smokeball_list_matter_types.
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., smokeball_list_matter_types for listing matter types). The description only mentions routing details, which are not helpful for usage decisions.
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 routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to disclose core behaviors like read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with three sentences, avoiding unnecessary detail. However, the first sentence is redundant and could be omitted.
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 having an output schema, the description does not reference it or explain what the tool returns. It also lacks context about the domain (legal bills) and how to interpret results.
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 single 'arguments' parameter is described only as 'JSON string of arguments' with 0% schema coverage. The description does not explain the expected structure, keys, or provide examples, leaving the agent guessing.
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?
The description states it lists bills but provides no context on what bills are or how this differs from other similar list tools in the sibling set. The generic phrasing adds little 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like clio_list_bills or billcom_list_bills. Also missing prerequisites, scope, or filtering info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and scope but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or read/write nature. The description is too generic to infer 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 short and front-loaded with routing info, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is concise but incomplete.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. The tool is generic and the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to determine its capabilities or 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments' with a default of '{}' and no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning about the expected keys or structure, making it nearly impossible to know how to use the tool correctly.
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?
The description states it is a 'Smokeball connector operation `request`' but fails to specify what kind of request (e.g., GET, POST) or which resources it targets. Compared to sibling tools like smokeball_create_matter or smokeball_search, the purpose is vague and generic.
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 specific Smokeball operations. The description does not explain when a generic request is appropriate over dedicated CRUD 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. It mentions routing and authentication scope but fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether the refund is synchronous, if it modifies state, or any required permissions. 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 very short and to the point, but it omits critical information. It is concise 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 the tool creates a refund and has an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what arguments to provide, what the output contains, or any side effects. A mutation tool without usage details 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?
The schema has a single 'arguments' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description only states it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without detailing expected keys (e.g., payment_id, amount). This adds almost no semantic value.
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 'Square connector operation create_refund' which clearly identifies the verb (create) and resource (refund). However, it lacks specificity about what a refund entails (e.g., refunding a payment) and does not distinguish it from similar tools like stripe_create_refund or square_list_refunds.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a payment ID) or when not to use it. No comparisons with sibling tools are offered.
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 (e.g., does it immediately refund?), idempotency, error conditions, or permission requirements. It only describes the route, which is not 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 short but includes extraneous routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that are not essential for selecting or invoking the tool. The structure is straightforward but could be better organized with a clear action statement first.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and minimal description, the definition is incomplete. An agent needs external knowledge about Stripe refunds to use it correctly. Prerequisites, return format (though output schema exists), and error states are not mentioned.
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 schema has 1 parameter 'arguments' (string) with no description. The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify expected fields (e.g., charge, amount). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 is a 'Stripe connector operation create_refund' but does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Creates a refund for a Stripe charge'). The name implies the purpose, but the description lacks a specific verb+resource statement.
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, what prerequisites are needed (e.g., a charge ID), or how it differs from alternatives like square_create_refund. The description only contains routing and authentication details.
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 only mentions routing through an endpoint with JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not disclose that this is a write operation or any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions beyond authentication.
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 (3 lines) but lacks substance. It front-loads the tool name redundantly but fails to provide essential information, making it under-specified rather than 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 low schema coverage (0%), the description should compensate with detailed parameter guidance. It fails to do so, leaving the agent completely in the dark about how to construct the arguments JSON. Although an output schema exists, the description does not help with 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 a single 'arguments' string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. The agent has no idea what fields to include in the JSON string.
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 creates a quote, but lacks elaboration on what a quote is in Xero context. The name and verb are clear, but no additional clarification beyond restating 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 like xero_list_quotes or xero_update_quote. No explicit use-case or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or rate limits. The only extra information is about routing and JWT, which does not inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes unnecessary routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke' and scope info) that are not helpful for an agent selecting the tool. It could be more concise by focusing on the operation's purpose.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what the tool returns or what a statement creation entails. There is no guidance on how the single argument should be structured. The description is insufficient 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning the single parameter 'arguments' has no documentation. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent with a JSON string whose structure and required fields are unknown.
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?
The description states it is a Xero connector operation to create a statement, but it does not explain what a statement represents in Xero (e.g., bank statement, reconciliation statement). It adds no context beyond the tool name, making it barely distinguishable from other 'create' tools. The description is more about routing than 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many Xero tools (e.g., xero_create_invoice, xero_create_bank_transaction) and no differentiation or prerequisite conditions 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?
The description notes routing details but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any side effects on Xero, or output structure (though output schema exists). Without annotations, this is insufficient for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the operation name, but it is not appropriately sized for the information needed. It wastes space on routing details while omitting crucial functional details. It earns a 3 for being brief but not 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 tool's complexity (Xero connector with output schema) and zero schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what attachments are, what input arguments are valid, or what the output represents, leaving a significant gap.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no semantic value beyond the schema ('type: string'). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain expected keys or structure but does not, making it nearly useless.
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?
The description repeats the tool name 'list_attachments' and adds 'Xero connector operation' but fails to specify what attachments are listed (e.g., attachments on invoices, contacts, or general). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like xero_get_attachment or xero_upload_attachment, making it 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint and nothing about side effects, authentication, rate limits, or other 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?
The description is short but includes routing details that may be superfluous for the AI agent. It is adequately structured but could be more concise by focusing on tool purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., list of budgets) and any filtering or pagination details. It fails to provide a complete picture for using the 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which repeats the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what arguments are expected, but it does not.
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 'list_budgets' as a Xero connector operation, which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not elaborate on what budgets are in Xero or how the tool differs from other similar list tools, leaving the purpose only minimally clear.
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. With many sibling Xero list tools, the description should indicate when list_budgets is appropriate, but it offers no 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 provided. Description mentions routing and auth but does not confirm read-only nature or disclose any behavioral traits beyond invocation.
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 includes unnecessary routing details about the API path, making it less concise. It could be trimmed to focus on purpose.
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 list tool with an output schema, the description fails to mention what data is returned or any filtering options. 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, but no information is given about valid keys or structure. The agent gains no useful guidance.
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?
Description restates the tool name without clarifying what expense claims are or how listing works. It does not differentiate from siblings like xero_create_expense_claim.
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 compared to other Xero list tools (e.g., xero_list_invoices, xero_list_contacts). No 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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions routing via JWT, tenant, and company scope, but omits critical details such as read-only nature, pagination, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) but at the expense of content. It is not well-structured; information is presented as a block without clear organization. Some brevity is acceptable, but here it omits essential 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of tasks), pagination, filtering, or other important context. For a list operation, this is inadequate completeness.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to clarify valid keys or structure, leaving agents with no actionable guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('list_tasks operation') and provides routing details, but does not explicitly state the business purpose of listing tasks from Xero. It fails to distinguish what the tool does beyond its 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other Xero list tools or task creation tools. The description lacks context about 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like modification, authentication requirements, or side effects. It only describes API routing, not what the operation does at a behavioral level.
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 not effectively structured. It leads with a tautology ('Xero connector operation update_credit_note') and wastes space on routing details. Every sentence should earn its place, but here they are uninformative.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description fails to provide necessary context for an update operation, such as what field can be updated, prerequisites, or confirmation of changes. It is incomplete for effective agent 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding minimal meaning. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not detail what keys or values are expected in the JSON string.
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?
The description only states it is a 'Xero connector operation update_credit_note' and mentions routing details. It does not explicitly state that the tool updates a credit note in Xero, leaving the purpose vague and relying solely on the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_create_credit_note or xero_list_credit_notes. The description omits any 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?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the routing endpoint and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not explain side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or what the tool actually does. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short at three sentences, but the first two sentences are somewhat redundant or overly technical ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke'). It is front-loaded with the tool name but contains some fluff. Could be more concise and directly useful.
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 appears to be a generic API request function, the description is incomplete. It lacks use-case explanations, expected argument format details, and warnings about potential side effects. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration, but overall context for safe and effective use is missing.
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 description provides some parameter information: 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds meaning beyond the schema (which only has type and default). However, it still vague about what constitutes valid arguments, and with 0% schema coverage, more detail was needed. It partially compensates.
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?
The description states it is a 'Clio connector operation' and names the platform tool, but does not specify what the operation actually does. It describes routing details rather than the functional purpose. The name 'api_request' suggests a raw API call, but the description lacks clarity on what actions it performs, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'clio_request'.
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. There are many sibling tools (e.g., clio_request, clio_search) with overlapping names, but the description offers no context or exclusions to help an agent decide.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool routes through a specific endpoint, but does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, what scopes or permissions are required, or what side effects occur.
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 concise, but the structure is poor. It begins with a tautological restatement of the name followed by routing details, failing to front-load the core purpose. It could be more informative without adding 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context for a creation tool. It does not explain what a custom action is, how it behaves, or how it differs from other Clio creation tools. The definition is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool among many similar siblings.
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 merely states that the only parameter, 'arguments', is a 'JSON string of arguments' without explaining what arguments are expected, their format, or any constraints. 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description restates the tool name as 'Clio connector operation create_custom_action' without specifying what the action does or what resource it creates. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like clio_create_bill or clio_create_contact, all of which are creation 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to use other custom action-related tools (e.g., clio_update_custom_action, clio_delete_custom_action).
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 idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or response characteristics. The routing information is technical but not behaviorally informative.
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 (three sentences) but poorly structured: it wastes the first sentence restating the tool name, then adds routing detail that is likely obvious from context. It is concise but not effectively organized.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to mention output or return value. It does not explain the creation process, prerequisites, or typical use cases. The tool's purpose and behavior remain ambiguous.
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 only lists the 'arguments' parameter as a JSON string without any explanation of its structure or expected keys. The agent cannot infer what content the JSON should contain.
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?
The description repeats the tool name and adds only routing details, failing to explain what a 'damage' is in Clio context. It does not distinguish this tool from many sibling clio_create_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other Clio creation tools (e.g., clio_create_bill, clio_create_contact). No 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?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing and JWT scope but fails to disclose any side effects, such as whether grants can be duplicated, whether they are immediately effective, or what data constraints exist. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short, but it includes routing information that may be extraneous for an agent (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke' and scope details). The first sentence essentially repeats the tool name. It could be more front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 presence of an output schema, the description should at least indicate what the output represents (e.g., the created grant details). It does not. Additionally, with many similar Clio create tools, the description lacks completeness to help an agent distinguish this tool from others.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, which adds minimal value beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should detail the expected keys or structure of the JSON, but it does not. The agent is left guessing what to include in the arguments.
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 'create_grant' as creating a grant in Clio, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not define what a 'grant' represents in the Clio context (e.g., permission, access right). The routing details do not clarify purpose. Sibling tools like clio_list_grants and clio_update_grant imply a grant entity, but the description lacks domain-specific explanation.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_update_grant or clio_delete_grant, nor does it mention prerequisites or context such as required permissions or pre-existing entities.
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 mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not state that this is a write operation, whether it is destructive, idempotent, or any side effects. The behavioral info 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and avoids verbosity, but it is not optimally structured. The first sentence is redundant with the name. It could be reorganized to front-load essential 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's complexity (a create operation with a single JSON parameter and an output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does, what the output represents, or any context about the connector 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states the 'arguments' parameter is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds basic type info but no details on the expected structure, required fields, or constraints.
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?
The description only restates the tool name and identifies it as a 'connector operation', but does not explicitly state that it creates a medical records detail. The purpose is implied by the name, but the description adds no value beyond that.
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 clio_get_medical_records_detail or clio_update_medical_records_detail. The description does not mention prerequisites or suitable 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and scope, omitting any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or required permissions. The agent learns nothing about 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but front-loads redundant information by repeating the tool name. The routing info may be unnecessary for the agent's selection decision. It is not well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, what arguments are expected in the JSON string, or how it relates to other Clio tools. The agent cannot fully assess whether to invoke 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's string type and default. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the expected JSON structure or required fields.
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?
The description states it is the 'create_payment_link' operation but does not explain what a payment link is or what creating it accomplishes. It provides technical routing details but fails to differentiate the tool's function from siblings like clio_create_bill or clio_create_contact beyond the 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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_list_payment_links or other create tools. The description does not suggest any context, 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?
The description mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all custom fields or paginated results, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should explicitly confirm read-only behavior and potential limits.
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 the first sentence is largely redundant with the tool name. The routing information is not essential for the agent's decision to use the tool. It is concise but wastes space on implementation details instead of purpose and usage.
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 having an output schema, the description provides no context about what custom fields are, what the return value contains, or any constraints (e.g., maximum results). The tool is simple but the description fails to fully compensate for the low schema coverage and missing annotations.
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 parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should explain the expected structure of the JSON string, but it does not.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('list_custom_fields') without explaining what custom fields are in Clio or distinguishing it from other list tools. It fails to specify the resource being acted upon (e.g., 'list all custom fields defined in Clio').
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it (e.g., if the agent should filter by matter or use a different endpoint).
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. The description only mentions routing through an endpoint but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, idempotent, or what happens with the arguments. 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 description is short (4 lines) and front-loaded with the name, but it includes technical route info that may not be useful for an agent. It could be more content-dense.
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 generic and sibling tools exist, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the range of possible operations, return value structure (despite having output schema), or any constraints. The agent is left guessing.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds a little meaning but does not explain what keys or values to provide. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.
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?
The description states it is a 'Clio connector operation request' but does not specify what kind of request (e.g., fetch, mutate) or which resource. Compared to sibling tools like clio_create_matter or clio_list_matters, this tool is ambiguous about its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 the many specific Clio tools (e.g., clio_create_bill, clio_get_contact). It does not indicate if this is a fallback or for custom actions.
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 behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only or destructive, auth requirements, or rate limits. The name 'review_only' hints at read-only behavior, but this is not confirmed.
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 (two sentences plus an args line) and not verbose, but it lacks critical information. It is minimally structured but 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?
With only one parameter and no annotations, the description does not sufficiently compensate. It fails to explain the tool's core function or output, leaving the agent uninformed despite the presence of an output schema.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is generic and does not list expected keys or provide examples. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal meaning.
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?
The description states it is a 'Clio connector operation review_only' and mentions routing, but does not explain what the operation does. Among many clio tools, this name suggests a review action, but the function is unclear, so the agent cannot distinguish its 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for when to invoke review_only compared to other clio tools like clio_request or clio_api_request.
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. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects it has. For a 'get' action, safety traits are not confirmed.
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 short but not optimally front-loaded. The first sentence is tautological. The arg list is useful but could be integrated more concisely.
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 having an output schema, the description omits what the tool actually returns or how the context action works. For a coding domain tool with no annotation backing, it leaves critical usage gaps.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal definitions: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides some context but lacks detail on expected format or structure of the inputs parameter.
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?
Description only says 'Run the coding domain agent action `get_context`', which essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what 'get_context' does. It does not distinguish from siblings like coding_read_code or coding_chat.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many coding siblings, there is no indication of when get_context is appropriate vs coding_chat or coding_read_code.
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 mentions routing via a dispatcher but fails to specify if the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. The agent cannot assess risks or preconditions.
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 somewhat structured with a one-liner followed by an args list. However, it is under-specified, and the argument descriptions are minimal. Could be more organized.
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 and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a campaign brief accomplishes, what the output looks like, or how it differs from similar tools. The agent lacks key context for selection.
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 explains 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but lacks details on formats, constraints, or examples, leaving interpretation vague.
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?
The description 'Run the commerce domain agent action campaign_brief' essentially restates the tool name without defining what a campaign brief is. It provides no insight into the tool's function or output, leaving the agent guessing.
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 the many other commerce tools (e.g., commerce_ab_test, commerce_assortment_gap_analysis). The routing details are generic and do not differentiate 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the dispatcher and scope, which is standard platform behavior, but fails to disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. For a tool likely performing a read or write operation, 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 relatively short but includes unnecessary implementation details (e.g., 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') that are likely standard. It could be more concise but is not overly 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or explain the concept of a 'trade flow'. The tool's purpose is not fully defined, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It states 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs', but does not explain what constitutes a valid objective or the expected structure for inputs. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's names and defaults.
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?
The description states 'Run the commerce domain agent action trade_flow_lookup' but does not clarify what 'trade_flow_lookup' actually does. It is a vague verb+resource, and among siblings like commerce_tariff_lookup, the distinction is unclear. No specific output or behavior is described, so the purpose remains 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer trade_flow_lookup over commerce_tariff_lookup or other commerce tools. No exclusions or context for selection 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?
The description mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, adding minimal authentication context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has other behavioral traits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but fails to provide sufficient 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 very short and front-loaded with the action name, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. The structure is acceptable but lacks meaningful content per sentence.
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 an output schema being present, the description does not mention return values or side effects. The tool's purpose ('enrich leads') remains undefined, leaving the agent without a complete understanding of what the tool does or yields.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only reiterates the schema's field names ('free-text objective', 'optional JSON string') without adding syntax, constraints, or examples. This adds negligible value beyond what the schema already implies.
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?
The description states 'Run the crm domain agent action enrich_leads' but does not explain what enriching leads entails. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like crm_enrich_contact or crm_verify_lead, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's specific function.
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 clarification of prerequisites, limitations, or contextual cues 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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether adding a collaborator sends an invitation, what the default role implies, or if the operation is idempotent. Critical behavioral details 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters. While concise in word count, it sacrifices necessary detail, failing to earn its place with substantive 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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description provides no context about return values, side effects, or any behavior beyond the basic action. Combined with the lack of annotations and parameter explanations, the description is grossly incomplete for effective tool 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 explanation for any parameter. It does not clarify the difference between email and user_id, the meaning of session_id, or valid values for role. The agent is left to guess from parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'add' and the resource 'collaborator to a document builder session,' making the purpose immediately understandable. It is specific enough to distinguish from similar tools like code_workspace_add_collaborator due to the 'doc_builder' prefix, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 versus alternatives like doc_builder_collaboration or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope (authorization) but fails to disclose whether the action is read-only, mutative, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The description is insufficient for an agent to assess behavioral 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 short (three sentences) but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (what the tool does). It could be more efficient by combining purpose and usage.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention what the tool returns or any completion semantics. For a tool that triggers a domain agent action, details about execution duration, callback patterns, or expected output are missing, leaving the agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides only terse, generic explanations: 'Free-text objective' for `message` and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for `inputs`. No examples, constraints, or formatting hints are given, leaving the agent with very little to work with.
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?
The description largely restates the tool name ("Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`") and does not specify what the action actually does. It fails to distinguish this from dozens of sibling tools like `coding_plan_domain_intelligence` which share the same pattern.
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 prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions routing and authentication scope but omits whether the action is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The name implies a write operation, but no details about what gets written or mutated.
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 reasonably concise, but it front-loads the tautological action name rather than the core purpose. The parameter list is clear but could be better integrated into a structured format.
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 large set of sibling tools in the document_intelligence domain, the description lacks critical context such as how `write_document` differs from create/update actions, what types of documents it handles, and whether it requires a specific folder or template. The presence of an output schema mitigates return value ambiguity, but the purpose and behavior are still underdefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates by explaining `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, these explanations are vague and do not specify format constraints or examples.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `write_document`') without explaining what 'write_document' does (e.g., create, update, or replace a document). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like document_intelligence_create_report or document_intelligence_create_slide_deck.
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 instead of other document_intelligence tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or 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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and authentication but fails to describe the tool's actual behavior, such as destructive nature, required permissions, or effects on Excel data. Critical gaps for an update operation.
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 wastes space on routing details and redundant phrasing. It misses substantive content that every sentence should earn its place.
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 (update operation with opaque parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the input semantics adequately. It is incomplete for effective tool 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 coverage is 0% and the description only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string, without explaining its structure or expected fields. The agent has no guidance on how to construct valid input, making the parameter effectively unusable.
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 names the tool as 'update_range' for Excel, indicating a verb and resource. However, it does not elaborate on what updating a range entails (e.g., setting values, formatting), making it vague but not tautological. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'excel_get_range' 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'excel_get_range' or 'excel_add_worksheet'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without clear usage boundaries.
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 bears full responsibility. It mentions authentication scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, 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 short and front-loaded, but includes unnecessary routing detail. It is adequate but not optimally structured.
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 likely business significance (dunning outreach), the description is too vague. It does not explain what the action does, its output, or expected behavior, leaving the agent 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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain parameters. It labels `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal meaning but lacks examples or constraints.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action `finance_dunning_outreach`') without explaining what 'dunning outreach' means. It fails to distinguish from related tools like `finance_stripe_dunning_recovery`.
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 scenarios, 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 should disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions internal routing (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not describe side effects, idempotency, permissions, or output behavior. The output schema exists but is not elaborated.
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 includes unnecessary infrastructure details (routing through dispatcher) that are irrelevant for tool selection. The structure is acceptable but could be more focused on purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a domain agent action with two parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the core function, expected input formats, or output structure, leaving the agent without sufficient 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value by describing 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string', but these are vague and lack constraints, examples, or format guidance. The agent cannot infer valid inputs.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Run the finance domain agent action equity_research_macro_synthesis' without explaining what the action does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not differentiate the tool from siblings like finance_dcf_lbo_spreadsheet or finance_peer_valuation_multiples.
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, what prerequisites exist, or how to differentiate between using free-text message versus structured inputs. The agent is left without context for appropriate 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool performs reads, writes, what side effects exist, or what the outcome of the investigation is. It only describes routing infrastructure, leaving the agent with no behavioral insight.
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 front-loaded with the name and routing, but the opening sentence is effectively a tautology. The parameter list is clear but could be integrated more naturally. It is not overly verbose, but could be more efficient by removing redundant lines.
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 (domain agent action with output schema), the description lacks critical context: it does not explain return value, typical use cases, input constraints, or how the inputs influence the investigation. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more heavily than it does.
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 the description's parameter documentation is essential. It explains message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks examples, allowed values, or format constraints, so it is minimally adequate.
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?
The description opens with 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_fraud_investigation', which essentially restates the tool name. It does not specify what the investigation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like finance_anomaly_investigation. The verb 'Run' is generic and provides no concrete action 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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is an authentication detail, not usage guidance. It does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as finance_anomaly_fraud_case_file or other finance investigation tools, nor does it state any 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and scope but does not disclose whether the tool mutates data, what happens on completion, or any side effects. Essential behavioral traits 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 relatively concise with two sentences and arg descriptions. However, it lacks clear structure (e.g., separate sections for purpose, usage, params) and could be more organized. It is adequate but not optimal.
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 finance domain and many sibling grant tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'grant_application_completion' does, what outputs to expect (despite having an output schema), or how it fits into the grant workflow. Missing critical 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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', but does not specify expected format, constraints, or examples, leaving them ambiguous.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action grant_application_completion' but does not explain what 'completion' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'finance_grant_application_compile' or 'finance_grant_application_extraction'. The purpose is vague and relies heavily on 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. The description focuses on technical routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It explains routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not mention what the tool actually does (e.g., create or read? side effects? auth requirements beyond JWT?). No mention of return values or outcomes.
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 relatively short but front-loaded with a redundant first sentence. It earns its place but could be more concise by combining routing info with purpose.
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 (invoking a domain agent), the description lacks essential context: what does the agent do? What kind of memo is produced? With 2 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full capability.
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 description provides basic meaning for parameters: 'message' is a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some clarity beyond the schema, but the descriptions are vague and do not specify expected formats or examples.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action `finance_investment_committee_memo`'), offering no explicit statement of what the tool does or what it produces. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like finance_board_memo or finance_fsa_review.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, nor any 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 short but contains a tautological first sentence. It could be more concise while adding substantive content. Structure is acceptable.
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 name suggests a payroll action and there are many sibling tools, the description should clarify scope (e.g., create/update payroll). The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent without expectations for return values.
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 description adds basic meaning to parameters ('free-text objective', 'optional JSON string'), which is more than the schema's bare defaults. However, schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should provide richer detail (e.g., expected format of inputs, examples). It does not fully compensate.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_payroll') without explaining what payroll action is performed. It adds routing context but fails to specify the verb-resource relationship or distinguish from sibling tools like finance_chat or quickbooks_payroll_payslips.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or recommend 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, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some authorization context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, potential side effects, rate limits, 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 short and avoids irrelevant content, but it is too sparse. While it is efficient, it lacks the substance needed to be useful. The structure is reasonable but the information density is low for such a generic tool.
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 an output schema, describing return values is not required. However, the description fails to explain the core functionality of the workbook action. The agent cannot determine what kind of objective is appropriate for the 'message' parameter or what the tool will actually compute or produce. This incompleteness significantly hinders correct 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults. However, this is minimal and does not provide examples, constraints, or expected format for the JSON input.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_qoe_workbook', which is essentially tautological. It does not specify what the action does (e.g., generate a workbook, analyze QoE). The purpose is unclear without additional knowledge of the domain action, making it hard for an agent to differentiate from siblings like finance_aging or finance_chat.
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 scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent receives no help in choosing between finance_qoe_workbook and other finance 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 routing scope but does not disclose read/write behavior, side effects, required permissions, or response characteristics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is obvious from 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably short (4 sentences) and starts with the core purpose, but it contains repetitive routing details that could be more concise. Every sentence provides some information, though some is trivial (e.g., 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope').
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, two parameters with low schema coverage, and an existing output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, errors, or how the tool integrates with other finance processes. The context is insufficient for an agent to use the 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is slightly more than the parameter names but does not explain acceptable values, format, or constraints. With no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate fully.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_risk_monitoring' but does not specify what risk monitoring actually does. It only describes routing mechanics (dispatcher, JWT, tenant, company). Among many finance_ sibling tools, there is no differentiation. The name suggests risk monitoring but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement.
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 finance_portfolio_monitoring or finance_treasury_risk_loop. No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.
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?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher (infrastructure detail) and does not reveal side effects, state changes, or permissions required. 'Ingest' implies data loading, but no specifics are given.
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 lines), which is concise but comes at the expense of informativeness. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks critical details that would improve utility.
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 two parameters (both optional), an output schema (unused by description), and resides in a large set of finance tools, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, input expectations, or output, leaving significant gaps.
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 description adds basic meaning beyond the schema: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not explain the expected structure or format of the inputs, which is crucial given 0% schema description coverage.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action `finance_statement_ingest`') without clarifying what ingesting a statement entails. It fails to specify the core action (e.g., extract, upload, parse) and does not differentiate from numerous sibling finance tools like finance_aging or finance_anomaly_fraud_case_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. The description omits any context about scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to guess among many finance domain actions.
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 behavior. It mentions routing through dispatcher with authentication/scope, but does not state side effects, whether it initiates a workflow, or if it is read-only/mutating.
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 short and front-loaded, but lacks sufficient detail. It is concise 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?
Even with an output schema present, the description omits what the tool does, what inputs the JSON expects, and what the recovery process entails. More context is needed for a finance recovery tool.
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%, but description adds minimal meaning: message is free-text objective, inputs is optional JSON string. This provides some context beyond the schema types and defaults.
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?
The name suggests failed payment recovery, but the description only says 'Run the finance domain agent action' without specifying what recovery entails or what outcome to expect. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like finance_stripe_dunning_recovery.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list includes many Stripe finance tools, but the description offers no criteria for selection.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is affected. The implementation-centric description fails to inform the agent 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 short but adequately structured with an args list. However, it lacks critical information, making its conciseness a trade-off against completeness. Every sentence is earned, but the content is insufficient.
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 the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description does not explain what the tool returns or its side effects. It omits details about working capital efficiency analysis, making it incomplete for an agent to use safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, so the description adds value by clarifying that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This provides basic semantic context beyond the schema's type/default fields.
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?
The description focuses on implementation details (routing through dispatcher) rather than specifying the business purpose. The name suggests working capital efficiency, but the description does not clarify what the tool actually accomplishes, leaving it vague among many finance siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternative finance tools like finance_capital_allocation_analysis or finance_ratio_dupont_analysis. The description only instructs to run the action with a message and inputs, lacking context for proper 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 provided. Description mentions it routes through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects (e.g., modifying payroll data), error behavior, or required permissions. Minimal behavioral insight.
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 the first sentence repeats the tool name. The routing detail is extra but not harmful. Overall, it is somewhat concise but at the expense of clarity and 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?
Output schema exists but is not shown. The description lacks context about what the action does, its inputs/outputs, expected results, or how it differs from other payroll tools. Incomplete for an agent to select and invoke 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%. Description adds 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs', but these are extremely generic. No explanation of what the objective should contain or what JSON structure is expected, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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?
Description states it runs a finance domain agent action called 'xero_payroll_trueup', but does not explain what a 'payroll trueup' actually does. The verb 'Run' and resource 'domain agent action' are vague, and the tool's specific purpose is not clarified beyond the 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 like xero_list_payroll_au_timesheets or xero_approve_payroll_au_timesheet. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the routing path and auth scopes (JWT, tenant, company), but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the response contains. The auth context is useful 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus an args line) and front-loads the tool name and routing path. It is concise, but the content is of low informational value, focusing on routing rather than core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it fails to provide a clear overview of what the tool does. For a list operation, it should at least indicate that it retrieves clients and provide behavioral context, which is missing.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with default '{}'. The description says it contains 'arguments for the connector operation', but does not specify what keys or structure are expected. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it provides insufficient guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Freshbooks connector operation `list_clients`' and provides routing details, but does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., retrieve a list of clients). The purpose is implied by the name, but the description adds no clarifying value.
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 sibling tools like freshbooks_list_expenses or freshbooks_list_invoices. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or 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?
With no annotations, description must cover behavior. It only gives routing info (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits whether the tool reads, writes, returns data, or has 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?
Short but not effective. Front-loads name but includes routing detail that may not help. Could be more concise if it conveyed purpose.
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?
Tool is simple but description is vague. No explanation of return value or use case. Missing essential context for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments' without hinting at required keys or structure.
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?
The description states 'Github connector operation default_org' but does not specify what the operation does (get, set, list?). No verb or resource description. The name suggests a default organization but lacks detail.
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 github_default_repo or github_default_pr_base_branch. No usage 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?
The description only includes generic routing and authentication details (JWT, tenant, company scope), but does not disclose tool-specific behavior such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., is the review dismissed silently?), or any destructive nature. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief but includes extraneous routing information that is typically handled by the platform. It is structured but could be more focused on the tool's purpose and parameters.
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 (GitHub review dismissal) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, what arguments are needed, error conditions, or success states. The output schema is present but the description does not leverage it to provide 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to specify required keys or format, leaving the agent without guidance on constructing valid input.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name as 'Github connector operation dismiss_review' without specifying the action of dismissing a review. It does not clearly state what the tool does beyond the name, making it nearly tautological. There is no differentiation from related siblings like github_submit_review.
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 or avoid this tool. There are no references to alternative tools (e.g., github_submit_review) or conditions for proper usage. The agent receives no contextual clues 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only notes that the tool routes through an API endpoint with authentication, but does not state that it is a read-only fetch operation, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The return format is not described.
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 (3 sentences) but wastes the first sentence on a redundant restatement of the name. The routing information is useful but could be integrated elsewhere. The arguments sentence is minimal. It is concise but under-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 that annotations are absent and the schema lacks descriptions, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the tool's core function, how to construct the arguments JSON, or what the output schema contains. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of input guidance.
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 one parameter 'arguments' with no description (0% schema coverage). The description says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value. It does not specify what keys (e.g., owner, repo, branch) are expected in the JSON, leaving the agent to guess.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Github connector operation get_branch_protection', which is a tautology. It does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves branch protection settings for a specific repository and branch, nor does it clarify what data is returned. Among siblings like github_get_branch and github_update_branch_protection, the purpose is only implied by the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_branch or github_update_branch_protection. 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 carries full burden but only provides infrastructure routing details. It does not disclose read-only nature, required permissions, or behavior beyond generic 'connector operation'.
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 includes unnecessary routing details that don't aid selection. Could be more concise and front-loaded with purpose.
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 parameter details and behavioral info, the description is incomplete. Even with output schema present, the agent lacks essential context to invoke 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is circular and adds no meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify expected keys like owner, repo, pull_number.
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?
The description restates the tool name as 'connector operation get_pull_request' without specifying verb, resource, or scope. It fails to distinguish from siblings like github_get_issue or github_list_pull_requests.
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 mention of 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?
The description mentions routing via JWT/tenant/company scope, hinting at authentication, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what data it accesses, or any side effects. No annotations are provided to compensate.
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 three sentences, but it lacks front-loaded, actionable information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently 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 output schema exists but is not described, the agent lacks understanding of what the tool returns. For a list operation, this omission severely limits its usefulness. The description does not cover contextual usage within GitHub workflows.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value beyond the schema's type. The description does not specify the expected structure of the JSON (e.g., required keys like 'owner' or 'repo') despite having 0% schema coverage.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Github connector operation `list_rulesets`' without specifying what rulesets are (e.g., repo-level or org-level) or distinguishing it from other list operations. It fails to convey a concrete verb+resource 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_list_branches or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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?
No annotations provided; description lacks behavioral traits like read-only, destructive, or idempotent. Generic routing info does not disclose safety 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?
Short description but includes unnecessary routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that is not actionable for tool selection or invocation. Could be more 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns or link to the output schema. Incomplete for a list operation; agent cannot infer expected output or 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?
Single parameter 'arguments' described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' – insufficient beyond schema. With 0% schema description coverage, expected keys or examples are missing, leaving the agent guessing.
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?
Description tautologically restates tool name as 'Github connector operation list_workflow_jobs' without explaining what workflow jobs are or why an agent would use this tool. No distinction from siblings like github_list_workflow_runs.
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. With many sibling GitHub tools, lacking context on appropriate scenarios (e.g., listing jobs for a specific workflow run).
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 only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. Missing key 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 relatively short (two paragraphs), but the first paragraph is redundant (restates name). It front-loads the action name but wastes the opening sentence. Could be more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tax scan tool with no schema descriptions and no annotations, the description should clearly explain what the tool does, what results to expect, and when to invoke it. It fails to provide this essential context, leaving the agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but does not specify expected formats, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description restates the tool name ('Run the grc domain agent action `tax_obligation_scan`') without clarifying what a tax obligation scan accomplishes. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like grc_tax_compliance_report or grc_tax_deadline_alerts.
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. The description lacks any context about use cases, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. Minimal behavioral 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 very short (three sentences plus two parameter lines), which is concise. However, the first sentence is tautological and the routing detail may not be essential. It is not wasteful but sacrifices substance for 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 lack of annotations, zero schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description should provide comprehensive context. It does not explain the output, the effect of the action, or its place among GTM siblings. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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 clarifies 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', but provides no examples, constraints, or expected format for the JSON. This adds basic meaning but is insufficient.
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?
The description is tautological: 'Run the gtm domain agent action `enablement_kit`.' It does not explain what the enablement kit does or how it differs from sibling tools like gtm_chat, gtm_go_to_market_plan, etc. The name suggests a set of enablement tools, but the description 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or scenarios. Among many GTM tools, this one offers no differentiation.
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 reveal behavior but only mentions routing under JWT. It does not disclose side effects, whether data is read/written, or any required permissions beyond basic auth.
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?
Relatively concise, but the first sentence is redundant (repeats tool name). Could be more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name suggests sharing intelligence, important context like recipients, confirmation, or side effects is missing. Has output schema but description ignores 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 coverage is 0%, so description must define parameters. It labels 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding minimal meaning. Lacks specifics like what to put in message or example inputs.
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?
The description only states 'Run the gtm domain agent action' which is almost a tautology. It does not explain what 'intelligence_share' means, unlike sibling tools that have clearer names and descriptions. The purpose is 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. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and does not reference 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, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, safety profile, authentication requirements, pagination, or rate limits. The description merely says 'list', which implies a read operation but 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), which makes it concise in length but not in content. It is underspecified and omits critical information that an agent needs to use it correctly. Front-loading is not relevant when there is almost no 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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that presumably defines the return format, the description should at least explain the parameter and the tool's purpose in context. It fails to do so, 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 one parameter 'status' with a default of empty string and no enums or description in the schema. The tool description adds no explanation of what 'status' means, what values are acceptable, or how it affects the results. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.
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 'List' and the resource 'Greenhouse jobs'. It distinguishes from siblings like hr_live_recruiting_applications (lists applications) and hr_live_advance_application (advances applications). However, it does not clarify whether 'jobs' refers to job postings or positions, which is a minor ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to list jobs vs. list applications or reject applications). The sibling tools are numerous, and the description provides no 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, and the description only mentions authentication scope and argument format. It does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, required permissions, error behavior, or rate limits. The behavioral profile is severely underdocumented.
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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the name and routing path. However, it sacrifices essential domain information for brevity, making it under-specified. Every sentence earns its place but fails to convey core purpose.
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 an output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits what operations are possible, what a successful response looks like, and how to interpret errors. For a generic action tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use it reliably.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but no further details are given about its structure, allowed keys, or constraints. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name and type.
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?
The description focuses on the routing mechanism ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') and the arguments parameter, but does not explain what the controller_action does. The name implies a generic action, but the actual business purpose is unclear, leaving the agent unable to distinguish it from more specific tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling tools (e.g., specific QuickBooks, Xero, or Stripe actions). The description lacks context for selecting this generic action over dedicated tools, leading to potential misuse.
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 mentions scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not indicate whether commands are read-only or destructive, or any 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 short but includes unnecessary implementation details ('Routes through...'). Could be more concise by focusing on functional purpose.
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 potential power (AWS CLI execution), missing details on permissions, risks, or output behavior (despite having an output schema). Incomplete for safe and correct 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 coverage is 0%. Description adds 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string' for inputs, but no details on expected format, structure, or constraints beyond the schema defaults.
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?
The description states 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `aws_cli`' which is tautological and does not clarify what AWS CLI actions are possible. It vaguely mentions routing through a dispatcher but fails to define the tool's core function.
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 like it_ops_aws_cli_execute or other it_ops tools. The description lacks context for appropriate 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only notes routing through a domain-agent dispatcher and scoping under JWT/tenant/company, but fails to describe what the tool does, side effects, or return value. This is insufficient for safe 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 very short (3 lines) with no extraneous text. However, the brevity results from lacking content rather than efficient communication. It earns a baseline score for being non-redundant but not more.
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 no annotations and sparse parameter descriptions, the description leaves critical gaps: the agent cannot determine what the tool searches for, what inputs are valid, or what output to expect. Completeness is inadequate for a tool amid many siblings.
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 adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string' are generic and do not explain expected formats, allowed keys, or example values. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('Run the it_ops domain agent action github_repository_search') without specifying what the action actually does. It mentions routing scope but not the actual search purpose, leaving the agent to guess how 'github_repository_search' differs from 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 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 specific GitHub API tools or other domain agent actions. The description does not clarify what type of search to perform or when to supply structured inputs.
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 provided, and the description offers no behavioral details such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It simply states 'Live Jira data passthrough' without elaboration.
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, concise and front-loaded. However, it is too short and misses essential information, which detracts from its 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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description still lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand when to invoke this tool versus other Jira tools. It does not explain the scope or relationship to sibling tools.
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?
With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the data source (Jira) and workspace (IT-Ops), but it is still vague. However, no additional parameter info is needed.
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?
The description 'Live Jira data passthrough for the IT-Ops workspace' is vague and does not specify what the tool does (e.g., query, list, stream). It fails to differentiate from sibling Jira tools like jira_search_issues, jira_list_projects, or other it_ops_live_* tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which implies auth context, but it does not state whether the action is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (4 lines) and front-loaded with the action name, but it omits essential purpose information. It is concise but 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 the low schema coverage, lack of annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It fails to convey the tool's purpose, usage context, and behavioral details, leaving significant gaps for an agent 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.
Parameters3/5
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 describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, which provides basic meaning but lacks format constraints, defaults, or examples. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description states it runs the it_ops domain agent action 'service_desk' but fails to specify what the action actually does (e.g., create a ticket, query status). The purpose is vague, and among sibling it_ops tools with clearer names like it_ops_incident_response, this one lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 alternative it_ops tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose side effects. It only mentions routing but not that closing a sprint may modify issue statuses or move unresolved issues to backlog. No info on permissions or reversibility.
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 includes irrelevant routing details. The Args section is unhelpful. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (what sprint to close).
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return value or behavior. The tool is a mutation that likely returns sprint details, but this is omitted. Overall 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments, with no schema coverage (0%). The description does not specify expected fields (e.g., sprintId, remainingEstimate) or format, leaving the agent with no actionable information.
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 closes a sprint, which is a specific action on a resource. However, it lacks details on what closing a sprint entails (e.g., moving incomplete issues, ending the sprint period) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like jira_start_sprint beyond the verb.
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., jira_start_sprint, jira_add_to_sprint). Missing prerequisites such as sprint ID or active sprint requirements.
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 mentions routing and authentication details, which are generic infrastructure. It does not indicate that this is a write operation, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., sprint creation), or any required permissions.
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 (3 sentences) and concise. However, the first two sentences are redundant (naming and routing) rather than informative. It is not front-loaded with actionable content. It earns a midpoint score for brevity but poor 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain return values or the expected content of the arguments parameter. For a mutation tool that creates a resource, the description is woefully incomplete, leaving the agent without sufficient 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no description of its inner structure. Schema coverage is 0% (no property descriptions). The description simply says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning. The agent cannot determine what arguments to supply.
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?
The description only restates the name 'create_sprint' and labels it as a 'Jira connector operation'. It does not explain what creating a sprint means in Jira, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like jira_start_sprint or jira_close_sprint. This is a tautology, providing no clarity on the tool's specific 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., required board or project), typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description lacks any context for appropriate invocation.
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 (e.g., side effects, requirements). It only mentions routing, not the operation's effect.
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 includes redundant phrasing and irrelevant routing details. It is adequate but not efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete: it does not explain the tool's purpose, expected input format, or output, despite having an output schema. An agent cannot determine how to invoke 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?
The single argument parameter is described as a 'JSON string of arguments', but no further details are given. With 0% schema coverage, the description should specify expected structure and examples.
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?
The description does not state what the tool does beyond its name and routing details. It fails to differentiate from siblings like jira_create_webhook or jira_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 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 context about prerequisites or 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?
The description provides routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is read-only or mutates state, or what the output contains. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three sentences) but the first sentence is a tautology. It could be restructured to front-load the business purpose. However, it is concise with no fluff.
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?
The description omits the tool's output or result type, which is critical for an agent to interpret the response. The legal domain action context is missing, making it incomplete for an agent to decide to invoke.
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 defines `message` as free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON string, but lacks specifics on valid formats, constraints, or examples. Given 0% schema description coverage, more detailed parameter documentation is needed.
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?
The description states it runs the `incorporation_readiness` action but does not explain what that action does, leaving the purpose vague. It does not differentiate from sibling legal tools like `legal_incorporation_legal_setup_loop`.
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 other legal tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context for invocation, or 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only describes routing (dispatcher, scope) but not whether the tool reads or mutates data, or what the 'knowledge_assistant' action entails. No side effects or access requirements 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 short but includes extraneous routing details that may not help the agent decide to invoke the tool. It front-loads the basic verb+resource but then spends characters on system mechanics. While not verbose, every sentence does not earn its place.
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 high number of sibling legal tools, the description should clarify what makes this tool unique. It does not provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately. The output schema exists but is not utilized in the description to convey 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%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds minimal semantics. No examples, constraints, or formatting guidance are provided, leaving the agent uncertain about valid input.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action knowledge_assistant' but does not explain what the knowledge assistant does. It focuses on routing mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) rather than the tool's purpose. Sibling tools like legal_contract_review clearly indicate their function; this one is vague and fails to differentiate.
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. The description lacks any context about suitable scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage without direction.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher and security context, but does not state whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any consequences of invocation. This 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short (50 words) and includes a clear Args section. However, the first sentence is redundant with the tool name, and the implementation detail about routing could be omitted or moved. Overall, it is adequately concise but not optimally structured.
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 and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of 'refresh' in litigation hold context, what the structured inputs should contain, or what the tool returns (output schema exists but is not referenced). The description leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.
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. For 'message' it says 'Free-text objective for the action', and for 'inputs' 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This provides basic context but lacks specifics on format, constraints, or examples. The meaning is vague and insufficient for proper usage.
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?
The description states it runs the legal domain agent action 'litigation_hold_refresh', but does not explain what this action does. It is essentially a tautology, as the resource name itself is already in the tool name. This provides minimal clarity to an AI agent on the tool's function.
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. With many sibling tools like legal_litigation_hold_issue and legal_litigation_hold_release, the description should differentiate but fails to do so. There is no mention of when to use or avoid this tool.
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 routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, mutation behavior, error handling, or output details. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a brief header and two short paragraphs. However, the lack of substantive content makes it less effective. Every sentence is present but they do not provide enough value for the tool's complexity.
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 is a legal service agreement packet with two unstructured parameters and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the packet is, how to use it, or what outputs to expect. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing context. The description is critically incomplete for an agent to use the tool properly.
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 coverage, the description must compensate. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding minimal meaning. No format, constraints, or examples are given, leaving the agent underinformed about how to construct valid inputs.
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 'Run the legal domain agent action `service_agreement_packet`', which provides a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what the action does or how it differs from similar sibling tools like legal_sales_agreement_packet or legal_nda_packet. The purpose is clear enough but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. No context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided, making it hard for an agent to select this tool appropriately.
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 only mentions routing through the dispatcher under scope, but omits side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response details. With zero annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes an Args section, but lacks front-loading of critical purpose. Every sentence earns its place, yet overall substance is thin.
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 an orchestrator, the description omits key context: what the action does, what success looks like, error handling, or return values. Even with an output schema present (not shown), the description fails to provide a complete picture for 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%, requiring the description to add meaning. It restates parameter names ('Free-text objective for the action', 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') with minimal elaboration, adding little beyond the schema titles.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action smokeball_orchestration' but does not explain what the orchestration does, leaving the tool's purpose vague. It fails to distinguish from sibling smokeball tools like smokeball_create_matter or smokeball_search.
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 neither describes appropriate contexts nor excludes scenarios, leaving the agent without decision 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is implementation detail. It does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, what auth is required beyond JWT, rate limits, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely performs a scan, more behavioral context is expected.
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 (three sentences plus an Args section). The first sentence is direct, but the second sentence about routing is less essential and could be omitted. The Args section is brief but lacks depth. Overall, it is somewhat concise but could be better structured to front-load the purpose.
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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the action returns, how the input parameters interact, or provide examples. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description fails to give the agent enough context to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'inputs' is an optional JSON string and explains 'message' as free-text objective, which adds some meaning. However, it does not specify what constitutes a valid objective, how to structure the JSON inputs, or the relationship between the two parameters. The description only minimally enhances the 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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action tax_obligation_scan' which is essentially a restatement of the name. It does not specify what the action actually does (e.g., scan for tax obligations from legal documents) nor distinguish it from siblings like legal_tax_compliance_report or grc_tax_obligation_scan. The verb 'Run' is vague, and the resource 'agent action' is not defined.
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 sibling tools like legal_tax_compliance_report and grc_tax_obligation_scan that likely serve similar purposes, but the description gives no context for selection. No when/when-not 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the response contains. Significant gaps in 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 short (two sentences) and avoids fluff, but the structure is poor: routing context is mixed with parameter description, and the operation name is repeated unnecessarily. It earns a 3 for being concise but not well-organized.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what the tool actually does. For a simple read operation, the agent needs to know the purpose and argument structure. The description is incomplete for effective 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but gives no hint about expected keys, values, or format. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input.
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?
The description states 'Monday connector operation `get_me`' which is nearly a tautology. It does not clarify that the tool retrieves information about the current authenticated user, nor does it distinguish it from similar tools like `whoami`. The purpose is vague and under-specified.
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., `monday_get_item` or `whoami`). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Usage inference is entirely left to the agent.
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 repeats the name and generic routing info. It does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The agent gets no insight into 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 description is very short (two sentences) but lacks substance. It front-loads the tool name but includes generic routing information that is not helpful. The brevity results in under-specification rather than 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 complexity of the tool and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain that subitems are associated with a parent item, nor does it clarify the format of the JSON argument. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no semantic value beyond the schema. The description does not explain what keys or values the JSON should contain to list subitems.
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 'list_subitems' which indicates the tool lists subitems, but lacks specificity about what subitems are in the Monday.com context (e.g., subitems of board items). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like monday_list_items or monday_get_item.
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 monday_list_items or monday_get_item. The description provides no context for 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. The description mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. The agent cannot infer safety 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) but front-loads routing boilerplate rather than core functionality. It is not concise in a helpful way, as critical information is 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks crucial context: what the tool actually does, what arguments to pass, and how the output relates to Monday.com. The description is too generic to be considered complete.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' No documentation of expected keys or structure is provided, forcing the agent to guess.
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?
The description states 'Monday connector operation list_teams' but does not explain what 'teams' refers to in Monday.com context. It lacks a clear verb-resource pair, making it vague compared to siblings like monday_list_boards.
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 other monday list tools. The sibling list includes many similar tools, but the description offers no differentiation or 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 mentions routing and authentication scope but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any side effects, rate limits, or return 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 short (3 sentences) and uses a clear list for arguments. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks clarity on what data is queried and how to formulate queries. The purpose is ambiguous, leaving the agent underinformed for correct 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only restates the parameter name and type ('JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'). It does not explain the expected keys or values within the JSON, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description does not state what data is being queried or how it differs from other Monday tools. The text 'Monday connector operation `query_data`' essentially restates the name without clarifying the tool's specific function or 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like monday_list_items or monday_get_item. No context is provided for selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist. The description mentions routing details but does not disclose side effects, safety, or behavioral traits. It is insufficient for an unannotated 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 includes extraneous routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that may not be helpful for an AI agent. Could be more concise and front-load the actual purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for a tool with zero required parameters, low schema coverage, and no behavioral traits. 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is poorly documented. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying structure or expected keys.
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?
The description is vague: 'Monday connector operation workspace_id' does not clearly state what the tool does. It fails to specify that it retrieves a workspace ID or any concrete action. The title is null, exacerbating ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like monday_hr_cases_board_id or monday_list_workspaces. The description provides no 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 supplied, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or what the tool actually creates. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 but includes irrelevant routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') that do not aid tool selection. It could be more focused.
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 context indicating an output schema exists, it is not provided. The description fails to explain return values or the result of creation, leaving the agent uninformed about 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding minimal meaning. Expected keys or structure are absent.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Notion connector operation create_comment' without specifying what resource is affected (e.g., a page or block comment). This is a tautology, offering no actionable purpose beyond the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'notion_comment_orchestrator' or other comment-related tools. 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether deletion is permanent, affects child blocks, requires specific permissions, or supports undo. The routing information is generic and irrelevant to 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 short but includes unnecessary routing details. It could be more concise by focusing on the delete action, though it is not overly 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 presence of an output schema (unseen) and sibling tools, the description lacks essential context about returns, side effects, and differentiation from related operations. It fails to explain what a block is or confirm irreversibility.
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 schema coverage is 0%. The description only notes that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation, but does not list expected keys (e.g., block_id) or format. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema type.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Notion connector operation delete_block' without specifying what a block is or the effect of deletion (e.g., permanent, reversible). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like notion_archive_page or notion_trash_page.
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 archive or trash operations. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios for deletion.
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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether revocation is irreversible, what permissions are required, or any side effects. It only mentions routing details, which do not inform the agent 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but at the cost of essential information. It is under-specified for a tool performing a sensitive action like OAuth revocation. Every sentence should add value; here the routing detail is trivial.
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 and importance (revoking authentication), the description is highly incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, success/failure conditions, or what happens after invocation. The output schema exists but does not compensate for lack of contextual guidance.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but no further details are provided. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not list expected keys or formats, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid argument.
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 tool is for 'oauth_revoke' operation on Notion, which implies revoking OAuth tokens. However, it does not explicitly state what is being revoked (e.g., user access token, refresh token) and does not differentiate from sibling tool 'notion_oauth_introspect'.
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 'notion_oauth_introspect'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The AI agent is left guessing about appropriate invocation 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 only notes the routing path. It does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon creation. 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 short, but it includes redundant phrases like 'connector operation' and 'platform tool' without adding value. It could be more concise and front-loaded with essential 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 complexity of a generic entity creation tool, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what an entity is, what the JSON argument should contain, or what the output schema returns. The agent cannot reliably invoke this 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only repeats the parameter name and type ('JSON string of arguments'). It adds no meaning about the expected structure or content of the arguments JSON.
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?
Description merely restates the tool name as 'Quickbooks connector operation create_entity' without specifying what 'entity' refers to (e.g., customer, vendor). It fails to distinguish from specific sibling tools like quickbooks_create_bill or quickbooks_create_invoice, leaving the agent with no clear 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other QuickBooks creation tools. The description lacks any context about use cases or alternatives, forcing the agent to guess.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions technical routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) and fails to indicate whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what the outcome is. This omission is critical for a payment action.
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 front-loads a tautology and routing info, but the lack of substantive detail makes it ineffective. Conciseness should not come 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 the complexity of paying a bill in QuickBooks, the description is entirely inadequate. There is no explanation of effects, error states, required permissions, or output schema content. An AI agent would lack the information to use this 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which merely echoes the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the expected structure, but it adds no useful 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 clearly states the tool is for paying a bill in QuickBooks, as indicated by 'pay_bill' verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'xero_pay_bill' or even other QuickBooks billing tools, which prevents a score of 5.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selection among many 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 provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The routing information is generic and does not compensate for missing behavioral traits. For a likely read-only list operation, this 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes space on redundant routing details and a blank line. The first sentence repeats the tool name. The only substantive information is the parameter description, which adds minimal value. The structure is not front-loaded with critical usage 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?
Despite having an output schema (context signal), the description provides no information about what data is returned, pagination behavior, or typical use cases. For a tool with a generic opaque parameter, an agent lacks enough context to use it 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?
The tool has one parameter ('arguments') of type string with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds only 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which merely restates the parameter type without explaining what arguments are accepted (e.g., filters, pagination, date ranges). The agent gains no actionable information about how to construct the parameter.
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 labels the tool as 'Ramp connector operation list_transactions' and repeats the platform tool name, but does not explicitly state that it lists transactions from the Ramp platform. The verb 'list' is implied, but the resource ('transactions') is not disambiguated beyond the name. Sibling tools like ramp_list_receipts and ramp_list_reimbursements suggest distinct resources, but the description fails to clarify what transactions are (e.g., card transactions, accounting entries). This is adequate but not clear.
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 alternative list tools (e.g., ramp_list_receipts, ramp_list_reimbursements) or under what conditions. The description only states routing details, not usage context. An agent would have no basis to choose this tool over 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects and behavioral details, but it only mentions routing and authentication. It does not state whether the tool finalizes a job, returns results, or has destructive effects, leaving a significant information gap.
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 brevity is not beneficial when it omits critical information. It lacks front-loaded purpose and clear structure, though it is not verbose. An agent would need significant context from elsewhere to use it correctly.
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 sibling bulk ingest tools and an output schema, the description should explain how this tool fits into the workflow (e.g., after uploading data). It fails to provide that context, leaving the tool's role ambiguous.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' has zero schema coverage, and the description only says it is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. This adds virtually no semantic meaning—no structure, required keys, or examples are provided, failing to compensate for the missing schema description.
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?
The description only names the operation as 'bulk_ingest_close' without explaining what closing a bulk ingest entails. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like salesforce_bulk_ingest_create or salesforce_bulk_ingest_results, leaving the agent to guess the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., an active bulk ingest job), or what state the system should be in. The description is purely procedural (routing info) rather than usage-oriented.
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. It mentions routing and auth scope but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, modifies state, what side effects occur, or any permissions needed. The name 'access' suggests read, but 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 short (three lines) and concise, but the structure is poor. It leads with a generic connector operation label before stating the actual purpose. The routing details could be secondary.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns. Given sibling tools for canvas, the lack of differentiation and output description makes it incomplete for an agent to use 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only repeats the schema parameter: 'Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It adds no information about what fields the JSON should contain, leaving the agent guessing.
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?
The description says 'Slack connector operation access_canvas' but fails to explain what accessing a canvas means or what the tool actually does. Among siblings like slack_canvas_section_lookup, slack_create_canvas, etc., there is no distinction. The name implies retrieval, but the description does not confirm.
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 other canvas-related tools (e.g., slack_canvas_section_lookup, slack_create_canvas). No context for when to invoke it 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, permission requirements, error handling). It only describes routing through an endpoint with JWT/tenant/company scope, which is infrastructure detail, not behavioral. No mention of what happens on success/failure, rate limits, 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 but includes routing details that are not essential for tool usage (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke' scope). It could be more focused on the tool's function. However, it is not excessively long or redundant.
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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not state the tool's purpose, required arguments, or return value. The output schema exists but is not referenced to supplement the description. The agent is left with little 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' (string, default '{}') has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which tells the type but not the structure or required keys. For such a sparse schema, the description should provide more detail (e.g., example keys like canvas_id, section_id).
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?
The description calls it a 'Slack connector operation' without stating what it does (look up a canvas section). The name implies retrieval, but the description fails to specify the action or resource. Sibling tools like slack_create_canvas, slack_edit_canvas, and slack_delete_canvas are distinguishable by name, but the description provides no differentiation beyond the generic connector 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_access_canvas or slack_get_channel_history. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess applicability.
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 present, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, destructiveness, or authorization requirements. It only states that the tool routes through an API endpoint under standard credentials, which is generic and uninformative. The agent cannot determine if editing a canvas is reversible or what side effects occur.
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 but not optimally front-loaded. The first sentence is a formal restatement of the tool name, which wastes space. The routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') is low-value and could be omitted. The structure includes an 'Args' section, but the content is sparse. It could be both shorter and more 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?
For an edit operation, the description is critically incomplete. It does not confirm that the tool modifies an existing canvas, specify which attributes can be edited, or note any constraints (e.g., canvas ownership or permissions). Even though an output schema exists, the lack of input context makes it difficult for the 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal value. Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description should compensate by listing expected fields or providing an example structure, but it does not. The parameter remains a black box, forcing the agent to guess its contents.
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?
The description merely repeats the tool name as 'edit_canvas' and labels it as a 'Slack connector operation' without specifying what editing a canvas entails (e.g., content, properties, collaborators). It fails to distinguish the action from siblings like slack_create_canvas or slack_delete_canvas, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the name alone.
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 alternative Slack canvas operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where a different tool (e.g., slack_canvas_section_lookup) would be more appropriate. The description only contains technical routing details that do not aid in 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 exist, so the description must cover behavior. It only mentions routing and JWT scope, omitting effects (user removed), permissions needed, or reversibility. The destructive nature 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (three sentences), but it lacks essential information. It is concise but not front-loaded with purpose. Some sentences (routing info) are present but not critical.
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 (kick user from channel) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to specify required input fields (channel, user) or behavior, making it hard for an agent to use 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no detail beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the expected fields (e.g., channel, user).
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?
The description only repeats the name 'kick_from_channel' without explaining the action (removing a user from a channel). It is vague and does not differentiate from siblings like slack_invite_to_channel.
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., when to use kick vs invite or archive). 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 carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not describe whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or pagination. The core behavior of listing members is 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and includes routing and argument info, but the first sentence is a tautology. It is not well-structured for quick understanding; key purpose information is 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention return values or behavior. It lacks purpose, usage, and parameter detail. The routing info is helpful but insufficient to make the tool fully understandable.
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 one parameter (arguments) with zero schema-level description. The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify what keys or values are expected (e.g., channel ID). This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Slack connector operation list_channel_members' without clarifying what the tool does (e.g., listing members of a Slack channel). The purpose is only implied by the name, but the description fails to explicitly state the verb and resource, making it 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like slack_list_channels or slack_list_files. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this 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?
The description adds that the tool routes through JWT/tenant/company scope, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., it publishes a view that may replace existing views) or behavioral traits beyond this routing. With no 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 short with two sentences and an args list, which is concise. However, the routing information may be unnecessary for functional clarity, and key 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?
Given the single parameter and existence of an output schema, the description does not cover return values or behavior. It lacks details about the view being published, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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 single argument 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no keys or expected structure are provided. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should offer more guidance on what the JSON should contain.
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?
The description states this is a Slack connector operation for views_publish but does not explain what views_publish does in Slack (e.g., publish a modal view). It mentions routing info but leaves the core purpose unclear, especially relative to sibling tools like slack_views_open or slack_views_update.
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., slack_views_open, slack_views_push). No 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 are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only provides routing details (JWT, tenant, company) but no information on side effects, required permissions, or what the operation actually does.
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 includes extraneous routing information that is not essential for tool selection. It could be more focused on the tool's 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 complexity of a Slack view push operation and the presence of an output schema, the description omits critical details like expected arguments (e.g., view payload, trigger_id) and return value. It is incomplete for effective agent 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?
The sole parameter `arguments` is described as a JSON string for the connector operation. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds minimal meaning. The description does not specify what keys or values are expected, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description only states it's a Slack connector operation for `views_push` without explaining what pushing a view entails. It does not distinguish from siblings like `slack_views_open` or `slack_views_publish`. The purpose is 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `slack_views_open`, `slack_views_publish`, or `slack_views_update`. The agent receives no 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 present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose whether operations are read-only or destructive, error handling, rate limits, or success/failure behavior. This is insufficient for safe 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 brief (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool name and routing info. However, the first sentence redundantly restates the name. While not verbose, it could be more concise by removing redundancy and focusing on actionable 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or structure. For a generic API request tool with no schema parameter descriptions, the description should provide comprehensive guidance on usage, available operations, and error handling, but it is lacking. It is incomplete for an agent to use 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should detail expected JSON structure, but it does not. The parameter semantics are too vague for an agent to construct valid input.
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?
The description states 'Smokeball connector operation api_request' but does not specify what operations are possible or how this tool differs from sibling tools like smokeball_request or specific actions (e.g., smokeball_create_matter). The term 'api_request' is vague and could refer to any API call, lacking 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 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 specific Smokeball tools available (e.g., smokeball_create_matter, smokeball_list_matters) and a similar sibling 'smokeball_request', the description fails to clarify the appropriate context for using this generic request tool.
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and JWT scoping, omitting critical info like that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or what errors may occur (e.g., invalid invoice ID).
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 but wastes the first sentence with a redundant restatement of the name. The second sentence about routing is tangential to the tool's function. Though concise, it lacks a clear, front-loaded explanation of what the tool does.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain the input parameter adequately (0% schema coverage). Combined with missing behavioral details, the description is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without external knowledge.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no real meaning beyond the raw schema (which also has no description). The agent is left guessing what keys/values are expected (e.g., an invoice ID).
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?
The description restates the tool name as 'Stripe connector operation get_invoice' but does not explain that it retrieves a specific invoice from Stripe. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like stripe_list_invoices or xero_get_invoice, leaving the agent unsure of its core function.
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., stripe_list_invoices for listing, stripe_create_invoice for creating). The agent receives no context on 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 are provided. The description discloses that the tool uses JWT, tenant, and company scope for routing, but does not disclose what the action does (creates, reads, modifies, etc.). The behavioral traits of the underlying action are not described.
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 front-loads an implementation detail (routing through dispatcher) that is not useful for tool selection. The Args section is well-structured but wastes space on that detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks behavioral disclosure, parameter guidance, and usage guidelines, leaving the tool underspecified for effective 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description labels 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but provides no context on what constitutes a valid objective or what structured inputs are expected. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description states it runs the 'wealth_kyc_risk_intake' action but does not explain what this action does. The verb 'Run' is generic, and there is no clear verb+resource relationship. It is distinguishable from siblings only by domain prefix, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other wealth_advisory tools or alternatives. The mention of routing through a dispatcher is an implementation detail, not usage direction.
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 mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not state whether the tool is read-only or modifies state, or any side effects. Critical behavioral details 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 brief and front-loaded with the action name, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It is not wasteful, yet fails to provide essential information, so a middle score is appropriate.
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 domain (wealth advisory) and the presence of similar sibling tools, the description should differentiate and explain the tool's role. It does neither, leaving the agent with insufficient information to decide when to invoke 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This still leaves the purpose of these parameters vague, offering little beyond the 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?
The description says 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action `wealth_portfolio_drift`' which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what 'portfolio drift' means or what the action accomplishes. It lacks a specific verb and resource, making it tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wealth_advisory_wealth_monte_carlo_retirement or wealth_advisory_wealth_tax_loss_harvest. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only or performs mutations, side effects, rate limits, or error behaviors. For a tool likely performing financial calculations or data operations, 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 short and includes a structured Args section, which aids readability. However, the opening sentence is nearly a tautology of the tool's name, and the additional sentence about routing adds little value. It is concise but at the expense of essential 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?
Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not mention what the tool returns or how to interpret results. Given the tool's likely complexity (retirement withdrawal planning), the agent needs to know the output type. Additionally, parameter semantics are underdeveloped, leaving gaps in usability.
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 add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which provides minimal clarity. It does not specify acceptable formats, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent uncertain about how to populate these fields effectively.
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?
The description states 'Run the wealth_advisory domain agent action wealth_retirement_withdrawal' but does not explain what the action does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, making it unclear whether this tool calculates withdrawals, generates strategies, or performs a simulation. Sibling tools like wealth_advisory_wealth_monte_carlo_retirement suggest related functionality, but no differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not specify context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, nor does it exclude cases where sibling tools like wealth_advisory_wealth_tax_loss_harvest or wealth_advisory_wealth_monte_carlo_retirement should be preferred.
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 only states it routes under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is generic and not specific to this tool. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires special permissions, or what happens when called (e.g., does it return a report object?).
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 (3 sentences) but wastes the first sentence repeating the tool name and routing path. It could be more concise and front-loaded with functional purpose.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the report contains (e.g., budget vs actual, date range?). For a report tool, this is insufficient for an agent to determine if it meets the user's need.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description should specify expected keys or format. This adds no meaningful guidance beyond the schema's type info.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'budget_summary_report' and adds generic routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It fails to state what a budget summary report is (e.g., comparison of budget vs actuals), making it vague and indistinguishable from sibling report tools like xero_balance_sheet_report.
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 other Xero report tools (e.g., profit/loss, cash flow). There are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual hints for an agent to decide.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions infrastructure routing and does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, required permissions, side effects, or return behavior. The word 'create' implies mutation but 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 short (3 sentences) but includes irrelevant routing details that are common to the platform. It could be more concise by focusing on the purpose and leaving infrastructure to the system-level documentation.
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 0% schema coverage, the description is very incomplete. It fails to define what a project is, what parameters are needed inside the arguments JSON, or what the output schema contains. The routing info is not tool-specific.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type and default. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain expected JSON structure (e.g., required keys for creating a project), but it does not.
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?
The description states 'Xero connector operation create_project' and 'platform tool xero.create_project', which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not explain what a 'project' represents in Xero or differentiate this from other xero_create_* tools like xero_create_asset or xero_create_invoice.
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 only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope), which are common to all Xero tools and do not inform usage decisions.
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 (destructiveness, side effects, required permissions). It only mentions routing details and fails to state that disposing an asset is likely irreversible or requires specific authorization.
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 includes redundant phrasing ('Xero connector operation' repeated) and lacks front-loading of key purpose. It could be more concise and structured.
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 an output schema existing, the description does not complete the picture. It omits details about the arguments JSON structure, the effect of disposal, and any dependencies or preconditions.
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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which does not specify the expected structure, required keys, or allowed values. It adds minimal meaning beyond the 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?
The description only states 'Xero connector operation dispose_asset' without explaining what disposing an asset entails. It vaguely implies the tool disposes of an asset via name, but the description does not confirm this or distinguish it from siblings like xero_create_asset or xero_update_asset.
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. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only, destructive, or performance characteristics. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and 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 concise but lacks structure and detail. It is not front-loaded with key information, and while brief, it fails 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?
Given the complexity of an executive summary report and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or its business context. It is incomplete for effective selection and 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 description coverage is 0%. The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value beyond the schema. It does not explain the expected structure, required fields, or possible values.
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?
The description states it is a connector operation for executive_summary_report but does not explain what an executive summary report is or what data it returns. It fails to distinguish from sibling report tools like xero_balance_sheet_report or xero_cash_flow_report.
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 instead of other report tools. No mention of prerequisites or 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?
The description mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, but it lacks actionable content. It front-loads routing info that may be irrelevant for selection.
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 having an output schema, the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., organisation name, address). The agent cannot fully determine if this is the correct tool for the task.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no details about expected structure or keys are given. Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal insight.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('get_organisation') without explaining what it retrieves or its value. It does not clarify that it fetches organisation profile details, making it a tautology.
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 xero_list_accounts or xero_get_invoice. There is no mention of 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to indicate that this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or what the tool actually does operationally (e.g., fetches a list of Xero accounts). The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 moderately concise (4 sentences) but includes redundant information (e.g., repeating the tool name and platform identifier). It could be more efficient by removing repetition and front-loading the actual purpose.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, likely a list operation), the description still lacks completeness. It does not explain return format, pagination, filtering, or how it differs from sibling list tools. The output schema is present but not utilized in the description.
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% for the single 'arguments' parameter. The description says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type. It does not specify what keys or values are expected within that JSON, leaving agents to guess.
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?
The description simply restates the tool name ('Xero connector operation list_accounts') without explaining what 'accounts' refers to or what the operation does. It provides no verb-resource clarity beyond the name itself, making it tautological and insufficient for distinguishing from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like xero_list_contacts or xero_list_invoices. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool 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 discloses that the tool routes through /api/tools/invoke under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing authentication context. However, it does not mention any side effects or confirm it is a read-only operation, and no annotations are present 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus args line), which is concise, but it lacks substantive content about the tool's purpose and behavior. It is not well-structured to be 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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description omits critical details such as what the tool returns (list of assets) and any constraints. 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description restates the schema's single parameter as 'JSON string of arguments' without adding any detail about expected keys or content. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.
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?
The description states it is a Xero connector operation 'list_assets' but provides no business-level explanation of what listing assets entails. It only gives technical routing details, leaving the purpose vague for an AI agent.
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 siblings like xero_list_asset_types or other list tools. There is no mention of context, filtering, or 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 should fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke with JWT scope, which is generic. Does not indicate whether data is read-only, pagination, or rate limits. Insufficient 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but inefficient. First line repeats the tool name. Second line provides routing info likely irrelevant for agent decision. Not front-loaded with key purpose.
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 having an output schema, description says nothing about return values, structure, or common use cases. Agent must infer everything from the tool name and output schema. 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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description (0% coverage). The description rephrases it as 'JSON string of arguments' adding no value beyond the schema. The actual tool-specific arguments are opaque.
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 lists asset types via Xero connector, but doesn't explain what asset types are or how this list differs from other list operations like xero_list_accounts. Purpose is clear at a high level 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No context for when listing asset types is appropriate. Description omits any usage 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 are provided, so the description must cover behavioral expectations. It mentions authentication routing and scope but does not disclose read-only nature, pagination, or data behavior. This is insufficient 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 three sentences long, but the first sentence is redundant with the name, and the second provides routing detail that may not be essential. It is acceptably concise but not optimally structured.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain what branding themes are or what information the tool returns. It leaves the agent guessing about the behavior and results of the listing 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which barely adds to the schema definition. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more detail on expected keys or format.
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?
The description states 'list_branding_themes' but does not define what branding themes are or how this operation differs from other Xero list tools, such as xero_list_accounts or xero_list_contacts. It essentially repeats the tool name without adding specific 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for its use. The description only provides routing information, not usage 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions routing and argument format. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or any authentication or rate limiting details.
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 (two sentences) but includes redundant repetition of the tool name and platform reference. The routing information is likely unnecessary for agent understanding.
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 payroll AU leave listing tool with only one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks critical information about what the output contains or what valid arguments are. It does not fully enable an agent 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema coverage. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond 'JSON string of arguments', failing to specify what keys or values are expected.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Xero connector operation `list_payroll_au_employee_leave`') without explaining what listing employee leave means or what it accomplishes. It does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'xero_list_payroll_au_employee_leave_balances'.
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 'xero_list_payroll_au_employee_leave_balances' or other payroll leave tools. The description lacks context on 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing and scope but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses, or any side effects. The agent cannot infer safe usage from this description alone.
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 (two sentences) and front-loaded, but it wastes space on a routing detail that is unlikely to help the agent decide whether to use the tool. It could be more informative without adding 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?
Given that there is an output schema (not shown) and the input is a single JSON string, the description fails to provide any context about return values, input fields, or typical usage. An agent has almost no actionable information 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%. The description only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments' without specifying what keys or values are expected inside that JSON. The agent has no way to know which parameters are supported or their format.
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 essentially restates the tool name as a 'connector operation' without explaining what a leave period is or how it differs from similar Xero payroll tools like leave types or timesheets. The name itself is somewhat clear (list payroll AU leave periods), but the description adds no additional purpose clarification.
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 xero_list_payroll_au_leave_types or xero_list_payroll_au_timesheets. There is no context about prerequisites, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; the description only states it updates an item and mentions authentication routing, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or whether it's destructive. Without annotations, the description fails to compensate.
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the name and routing, but it sacrifices informative value for brevity. Appropriate length given the low information density.
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 having an output schema, the description does not hint at return values or expected behavior. For an update operation, crucial details like whether the item must exist, what fields are updatable, and confirmation of success are missing.
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%; the description adds that `arguments` is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify which fields are expected or their formats. This provides minimal additional meaning beyond the raw 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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Xero connector operation `update_item`' without explaining what an 'item' represents in Xero or distinguishing it from `xero_create_item`. No verb-resource clarity beyond the name itself.
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 `xero_create_item` or `xero_list_items`. No mention of prerequisites, required item existence, or common 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only notes routing through '/api/tools/invoke' and scope under JWT/tenant/company. It does not describe the update's effect (e.g., which fields are immutable), error handling, or whether changes are reversible. This is 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 brief (3 sentences) but contains redundant repetition of the tool name and parameter name. It front-loads identically named details, but the lack of substantive content makes it poorly structured for decision-making.
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 updating a purchase order in Xero, the description is severely incomplete. It omits details on required fields, output format (despite having an output schema), and integration context. The minimal content is insufficient 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?
The description says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the expected JSON structure or required fields (e.g., PurchaseOrderID, LineItems). It does not, leaving the agent unable to form valid arguments.
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 is an 'update_purchase_order' operation, which implies it updates purchase orders. However, it merely restates the tool name without specifying what fields can be updated or how it differs from similar tools like xero_create_purchase_order. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and sibling 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 instead of other Xero tools (e.g., xero_create_purchase_order, xero_get_purchase_order). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is destructive, or any side effects. The description only states it is a 'connector operation,' which is insufficient for understanding behavior.
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 contains two redundant sentences: the first sentence is a tautology (repeats the tool name and title), and the second about routing is not useful for selecting or invoking the tool. The third sentence is necessary but vague. The structure wastes space on non-essential 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks critical context: it does not explain what fields are required in the arguments (e.g., TrackingCategoryID), what can be updated (e.g., name, status), or how the update behaves. For an update operation, this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful structure or field details. The agent cannot determine what keys or values are expected to update a tracking category.
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 'update tracking category' which aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from create or list operations, but it fails to specify what specific aspects of a tracking category can be updated (e.g., name, status). Compared to sibling tools like xero_update_tracking_options, the purpose is somewhat 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 like xero_create_tracking_category or xero_update_tracking_options. The description does not include any usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
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 discloses authentication requirements (JWT, tenant, company scope) and routing, which adds some behavioral context beyond the name. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only, has pagination, or any limitations. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences) but includes unnecessary technical routing info that does not help in tool selection or invocation. It could be more concise by focusing on the operation's purpose and 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 tool's complexity (connector operation with many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return values (despite an output schema existing), filtering capabilities, or how it relates to similar tools like billcom_list_bills. The agent would lack key information for correct 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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain what keys or values the JSON should contain, leaving the agent without essential usage details.
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 mentions 'list_payments' as the operation, indicating it lists payments, which is clear enough but lacks specifics like what payment data is returned or how it differs from sibling tools like billcom_list_bills. It does not distinguish itself from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only provides technical routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope) but no 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and scoping but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The behavior of creating a task is implied but not elaborated.
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 includes redundant phrasing (e.g., both the name and platform tool name). It could be more concise and better structured to prioritize key 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 lack of annotations, schema descriptions, and the complexity of a Clio create operation, the description is incomplete. It does not specify required arguments, output format, or differentiate from similar 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no information beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the expected structure or fields of the JSON.
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 'Clio connector operation create_task', which heavily implies it creates a task, but it does not explicitly state the verb and resource. The purpose is somewhat clear from the name but the description adds little value.
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 clio_list_tasks or other create tools. There are many sibling tools, and the description offers no 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 behaviors. It notes routing through an API endpoint under JWT scope, which is partially transparent, but fails to state that the operation creates a resource (destructive), any side effects, or permission requirements. A 'create' action inherently implies mutation but is not explicitly stated.
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 (3 sentences) but poorly structured: the first sentence redundantly states the tool name, the second provides routing context, and the third vaguely describes the parameter. It could be more efficiently organized to front-load the purpose.
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 an output schema but no output description, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the created time entry contains, return values, or what data is needed beyond a generic JSON string.
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 only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaningful understanding of what parameters are expected or their format, leaving the agent with no guidance.
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 'create_time_entry' and 'Clio connector operation', indicating the tool creates a time entry. However, it lacks specificity on what a time entry is and does not differentiate from other create tools like clio_create_task. The routing info is tangential to 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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_list_time_entries or other creation tools. The description does not mention 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only mentions routing/authentication details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose the destructive nature of deletion, reversibility, permissions, or side effects. The behavioral information 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 concise but poorly structured. It redundantly repeats the tool name and platform ID, and the routing info could be omitted. The purpose should be front-loaded more clearly.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain return values, usage examples, or what constitutes a 'medical records detail.' This lack of completeness hinders an agent's ability 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema description coverage, this adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. The description should specify expected keys or provide an example.
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 identifies it as a delete operation for medical records detail, which aligns with the tool name. However, it does not clarify what 'medical records detail' represents or differentiate it from other clio_delete_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other delete tools (e.g., clio_delete_grant, clio_delete_webhook). The description fails to provide context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.
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 reveals no behavioral traits such as read-only vs. destructive side effects, idempotency, or authentication requirements. The routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') is an implementation concern, not a behavioral disclosure. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails entirely.
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 (two sentences plus an arg line), but it front-loads internal routing details that are irrelevant to the agent's invocation decision. It could be more concise by focusing on purpose and parameters.
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?
The description omits essential context about what activities are and how they relate to other Clio entities. Although an output schema exists, the description fails to differentiate this tool from numerous sibling list tools, making it incomplete for an agent to select appropriately.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds only that it is a JSON string—already implied by the schema type. No guidance on expected keys, format, or examples is provided. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.
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 is a 'list_activities' operation for the Clio connector, but it does not define what an 'activity' is (e.g., time entries, events, or other records). The name and sibling tools (e.g., clio_list_bills, clio_list_contacts) imply listing some resource, but the description lacks specificity to distinguish from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 clio_list_tasks, clio_list_time_entries, or other list operations. The description does not mention prerequisites, scope, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision-making 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the routing path and argument format, omitting side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. For an update operation, 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 very short (three sentences) but includes unnecessary routing information ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that is irrelevant for an agent selecting the tool. The first sentence merely restates the name. It could be more streamlined and focused on functional purpose.
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?
The description lacks critical context for an update operation: no mention of return value (despite having an output schema), no guidance on idempotency, no required argument fields, and no behavioral constraints. It is incomplete for an agent to 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds marginal clarity beyond the schema. The description does not specify expected keys, required fields, or constraints, leaving the agent with little guidance on how to construct the JSON. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.
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 identifies the tool as an 'update_grant' operation, which conveys a verb+resource (update grant) and distinguishes it from create, delete, get, and list grant siblings. However, it provides no additional detail on what a Clio grant is or what updating it entails, leaving the purpose vaguely clear.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_create_grant or clio_delete_grant. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, 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?
The description reveals that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT and scope, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it creates resources), dependency on annotations (none provided), or any destructive behavior. Without annotations, the description carries the burden but 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four lines, front-loads the purpose, and separates arguments clearly. Every sentence adds some value, though one sentence is essentially a restatement.
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 presence of an output schema, the description omits critical context: what the action accomplishes, prerequisites, side effects, or when to choose this tool over alternatives. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides brief semantics for both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks depth (e.g., expected format for 'inputs').
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?
The description states it runs the coding domain agent action 'app_growth_loop_build', but does not explain what the action does. The tool name includes 'build' but the purpose is vague, and it does not distinguish from siblings like 'coding_growth_loop_web_development' or 'coding_website_growth_loop_build'.
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 other coding tools or sibling tools. The description only mentions routing and authentication, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It mentions creating a rule but does not disclose side effects, whether it modifies the original task, or what 'shape' implies. 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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices clarity for brevity. No bullet points or structured format to aid comprehension.
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 sibling tools like 'approve_task' and 'set_approval_preference_state', the description does not explain how an auto-accept rule differs or fits into the workflow. An output schema exists but its content is unknown; the description alone is incomplete.
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 to the two parameters. 'task_id' is not explained (which task?), and 'body' with default '{}' is cryptic. The description fails to clarify how parameters relate to the rule creation.
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 tool creates an auto-accept rule from an existing approval task's shape, but 'shape' is vague and the exact meaning is unclear. It uses a verb and resource, but lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like 'approve_task' or 'set_approval_preference_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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as approving a single task or setting other preferences. No prerequisites or context for when creating an auto-accept rule 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 only mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, lacking disclosure on whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has 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 but lacks front-loading of key information; the arg list is clearly formatted but the overall content 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?
Even with an output schema present, the description fails to explain the action's purpose, expected outcomes, or behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON string; no structure or constraints are provided beyond the schema.
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 'Run the crm domain agent action competitive_positioning' which indicates a specific verb and resource, but does not explain what competitive positioning does, making it vague compared to sibling CRM tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like crm_competitor_watchlist or crm_assess_pipeline; no when/when-not advice 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some authentication context, but it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what exactly gets created (e.g., whether it modifies data or just returns a plan). For a creation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences: purpose, routing context, and argument list. It front-loads the action name and quickly covers key points. No unnecessary words, but the brevity sacrifices clarity.
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 having an output schema (indicated by context), the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., created collateral ID, URL, or confirmation). For a domain agent action that routes internally, more context about the dispatch flow and result would be expected. The description is too sparse to fully specify the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the default values in the schema. However, it does not specify expected keys in 'inputs' or constraints, so it only partially compensates.
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?
Description states 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action create_marketing_collateral' but does not explain what marketing collateral is or what the action actually produces. It is a tautology that restates the tool name without clarifying the output or distinguishing it from siblings like create_marketing_document or create_sales_collateral.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_marketing_document, create_sales_collateral, or other creation tools. The description provides no context for selection 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 mentions authentication/authorization routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits what the tool actually does to create a document, whether it overwrites, requires specific permissions, or produces output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with an 'Args' section. The first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.
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?
The description fails to provide enough context for an agent to select this tool over similar ones. It does not mention output, side effects, or what distinguishes a marketing document from other document types. The presence of an output schema is noted but unused.
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 description adds basic meaning to both parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. Given 0% schema coverage, this is helpful but lacks details on expected format or constraints.
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?
The description merely restates the action name 'create_marketing_document' without explaining what a marketing document is or how it differs from other document creation tools. It focuses on routing details rather than the tool's core purpose.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., document_intelligence_create_marketing_collateral, document_intelligence_create_report). No context, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations 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. Description mentions routing and authentication scope but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or safety. Annotations are absent, so description should compensate but does not.
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?
Very concise two-sentence description plus parameter list. Front-loaded with the tool name. No unnecessary content, but could be more 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about what the tool does (retrieve a range in Excel), what arguments are needed in the JSON, and how to format them. Incomplete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%. Description only says the parameter is a JSON string of arguments, without explaining what those arguments should contain (e.g., spreadsheet, range reference). Minimal value added beyond 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?
The description only states it's an Excel connector operation for get_range, but does not explain what get_range means (e.g., retrieving cell data). It is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like excel_update_range.
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. Sibling tools (e.g., excel_update_range, excel_list_worksheets) exist, but the description provides no 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 carries full responsibility. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, adding some security context, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, data freshness, or whether the tool makes external API calls.
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 but includes verbose routing details that could be omitted. The core purpose is buried. It is reasonably concise but not optimally structured for quick comprehension.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description lacks completeness by not clarifying the behavior or expected format of the arguments parameter. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema coverage, and the description does not explain its purpose, expected format, or required keys. The agent gains no insight beyond the schema itself.
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 identifies this as a platform tool for listing expenses from Expensify via a connector operation, which distinguishes it from list_policies and list_reports. However, it does not explicitly state the output (list of expenses) and focuses on routing details, making the purpose only moderately clear.
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 other expense-related tools or alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, filtering, 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 provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some transparency about authorization. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or what the output contains. Despite an output schema existing, the description ignores it, leaving behavior opaque.
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 brief (two sentences plus a bullet list). It front-loads the key action phrase and then provides parameter details. There is no extraneous information, but it could be better organized with clear sections. Overall, it is appropriately sized given the minimal content.
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 an output schema, the description should explain the return format or purpose of the output, but it does not. The tool has many finance siblings, yet the description offers no differentiation. The parameter descriptions are minimal. The description is incomplete for the tool's apparent complexity and context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
While schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds interpretations: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs are 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema. However, the descriptions are generic and lack specifics on the objective's expected format or the structure of the inputs, so the added value is moderate.
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?
The description tautologically states 'Run the finance domain agent action' without explaining what the action does. It does not clarify that the tool interprets forecast results or generates interpretations, leaving the purpose vague. The name suggests interpretation, but the description adds no specificity, and siblings like finance_forecasting and finance_forecast_sensitivity are not distinguished.
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 alternative finance tools or other tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess if this tool is appropriate for interpreting forecasts or performing other actions.
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 mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose internal behavior, side effects, error states, or outcomes, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. It then lists arguments concisely. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the content is thin.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or the nature of the domain agent action. Among many finance siblings, the tool's specific role is unclear. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke it effectively.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by labeling 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds value but remains vague without examples or constraints.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action funding_program_intake' but does not explain what that action does. It is a slight tautology and fails to differentiate from other finance_* tools. The name suggests an intake process, but no specifics are provided.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools. The agent is left without direction 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, return values, or whether the action is read-only or destructive. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 includes an Args section, but the first sentence restates the tool name without clarifying purpose. The routing detail is useful but not front-loaded. Sentence efficiency is moderate.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the core functionality—discovering grant programs. An agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool, what inputs are appropriate, or what results to expect. Critical context is missing.
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?
Given zero schema coverage, the description adds meaning by labeling 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides basic semantic context beyond the type definitions in the 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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action grant_program_discovery', which is tautological and does not explain what the action actually does. It fails to convey that the tool discovers grant programs, leaving the agent uncertain of its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. The description lacks any contextual hints about prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations to avoid.
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 behavior. It only states it routes through a dispatcher, giving no insight into side effects, data mutation, permissions, or rate limits. The name 'event_consumer' hints at read/process, but this is not confirmed.
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 (5 lines) with a clear heading and args list. No wasted words, but it could be restructured to provide more informative content without adding 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description ignores return values. With no annotations and a bare description, the tool's context is incomplete. An 'event consumer' should specify event types, processing behavior, and effects, which are entirely absent.
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%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string', which is minimal and lacks format, examples, or constraints. This barely compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_ledger_event_consumer') and adds routing context. It lacks a specific verb and resource, making it unclear what the tool actually does (e.g., process ledger events, trigger a consumer). Siblings like finance_forecast or finance_query_data have clearer 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?
The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many finance siblings, the use case is ambiguous; no exclusions or alternative tool names 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 are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some implementation context, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the action is read-only or mutates state. The behavior is only vaguely described.
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 short with three sentences plus an Args list. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Some detail about routing is implementation-specific but not overly verbose. Overall, it is efficient 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 tool's complexity (generic dispatch action) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what the output represents, despite an output schema existing. The purpose is ambiguous, and the tool's role in the domain is not well-positioned against alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the schema's default values and titles. However, no examples or constraints are given, so it is minimally adequate.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name with domain prefix. It does not explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' actually accomplishes or produces, leaving the functional purpose unclear. Compared to similar tools across domains, it fails to distinguish its specific role.
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 alternative finance tools or other domain intelligence actions. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate usage. The description also lacks mention of any alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with scoping but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, has side effects, or what outputs to expect. Critical behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action name. It efficiently communicates the routing and parameter roles, though the parameter docs are minimal. It is under ten words for the core purpose, which is generally 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 moderate complexity (free-text objective, routing via dispatcher) and presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results. It does not mention return values or provide enough context for the agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's explanation of 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string adds some value. However, it does not specify allowed formats, constraints, or how the parameters affect behavior.
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?
The description states the tool runs a 'finance domain agent action' but does not specify what SaaS metrics are involved or computed. It vaguely references the action name without explaining its purpose, failing to distinguish it from numerous sibling finance tools like finance_forecasting or finance_revenue_leakage.
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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent receives no context for appropriate invocation.
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?
Description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or read-only vs destructive nature. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but efficient. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the first sentence is redundant. Lacks substantive information but 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 no annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what the tax workflow does, when to invoke it, or what output to expect. Output schema exists but is not described.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaningful context beyond the 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?
Description says 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_tax_workflow', which is tautological and does not specify what the tool actually does. It lacks a concrete verb and resource, and does not distinguish from numerous sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 mention of 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope, which hints at authentication but does not disclose core behavioral traits. Without annotations, the agent needs to know that this is a read-only operation, what happens on error, or whether it requires a repository context. The description fails to provide such details.
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 (two sentences plus an args line), which is appropriate for the tool's simplicity. However, it lacks informative content, and the structure is flat. It earns a middle score because it is concise but not effectively structured to convey key 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the input requirements or the scope of the list (e.g., which repository's branches). The output schema existence does not excuse the complete lack of parameter guidance. The tool's complexity is low, but the description gaps leave the agent without necessary context to use it safely and 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but no schema or examples are given for its internal structure. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no way to know what keys (e.g., repo, owner) to provide or how to construct the JSON. This is critically insufficient for correct tool invocation.
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 is a 'list_branches' operation for GitHub, which is moderately clear. However, it does not specify that it lists branches of a repository or what 'branches' means in this context. The description merely restates the name and adds a technical routing detail, but lacks a plain-English explanation of the tool's function. The purpose is inferred from the name, not illuminated by the description.
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 sibling tools, there are several GitHub tools like 'github_get_branch' and 'github_list_commits', but the description does not differentiate or suggest use cases. An agent must rely solely on the name to infer relevance.
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 only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope), not the tool's behavioral traits (e.g., whether it modifies state, requires write permissions, or feedback on success). Critical gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences with no fluff, but the routing info is generic and not tool-specific. Every sentence is short, but the content is insufficiently informative. Conciseness is acceptable, but structure could front-load the actual purpose.
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 an output schema existing, the description is very incomplete. It omits details like what the tool acts on, parameters inside the JSON, and behavior. A typical GitHub API tool requires far more 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%, so description must explain the 'arguments' JSON. It merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'—no specifics on required keys (e.g., repo, pull_number, reviewers). This fails to add meaning beyond the schema structure.
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 is the 'request_reviewers' operation for GitHub, implying it requests reviewers. However, it fails to specify the target resource (e.g., pull request), leaving purpose somewhat vague. Distinguishable from siblings like 'github_remove_requested_reviewers' by name alone.
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., github_submit_review, github_remove_requested_reviewers). No context about prerequisites (e.g., an open pull request). The description provides no usage direction.
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 mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company). It does not disclose whether the tool reads, writes, mutates state, or has any side effects. The term 'loop' suggests iterative behavior but is unexplained.
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 brief, consisting of one sentence and a list of args with explanations. It is front-loaded with the core action. Despite being short, it does not waste 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered, but the description remains incomplete. It does not explain what the loop does, how it behaves over time, or what structured inputs are expected. For a 'loop' tool, this is a significant gap.
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 add meaning. It merely restates parameter names as 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string', providing no format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's type and default.
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?
The description states 'Run the hr domain agent action leave_planning_loop' but does not clarify what the action accomplishes. It is unclear whether it plans leave, approves leave, or runs a generative loop. Sibling tools like 'hr_leave_request' have clearer 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'hr_leave_request', 'hr_chat', or other HR tools. The description lacks any context for appropriate 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 carries full burden. It only mentions routing 'under your JWT, tenant, and company scope' but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, destructiveness, or any 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the action name. However, it includes technical routing detail ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') which may not be essential.
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 part of a large HR sibling group, the description lacks enough context for an agent to understand what leave_request does, what inputs it expects meaningfully, and what output to expect (output schema exists but is not described). It is incomplete for practical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' It clarifies that inputs are optional JSON but is vague about what the objective should contain.
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?
The description says 'Run the hr domain agent action `leave_request`,' which is nearly a tautology (the tool name is hr_leave_request). It does not specify what the action does (e.g., submit, approve, check status), and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like hr_live_leave_balance or hr_leave_planning_loop.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description only explains routing mechanics, not 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 discloses routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe the action's side effects, whether it is destructive, idempotent, or what happens upon invocation. Behavioral context is critically missing.
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 short and direct with no wasted words. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness. It is efficient but 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 tool is a domain agent action with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description should explain what the action does and returns. It lacks explanation of the feedback purpose, expected behavior, and return value. Incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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 the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective' clarifies the role, and 'inputs: Optional JSON string' indicates format. However, no constraints, examples, or allowed values are provided. This meets a baseline but not more.
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?
The description says 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `feedback_to_sdlc`', which is near-tautological. It does not clearly state what the tool accomplishes (e.g., send feedback to the development lifecycle). Among siblings like it_ops_feedback_to_code_loop and it_ops_chat, the purpose is not differentiated.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., it_ops_feedback_to_code_loop). No mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios. The description only covers technical routing details, not 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 bears full burden. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is useful for authorization context, but does not disclose any side effects, destructive potential, or what the action returns. It lacks behavioral details beyond the scope note.
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 short and to the point, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and followed by parameter details. However, it could be more informative without becoming 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 the tool's complexity (it invokes a domain agent action with free-text objectives and optional JSON inputs) and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks explanation of the action's purpose, expected outputs, and usage context. It is insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It provides basic comments: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds minimal meaning but remains generic and does not specify expected formats or constraints.
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?
The description states it 'Runs the it_ops domain agent action `website_growth_loop_to_sdlc`', but does not explain what that action does. The tool name suggests a website growth loop to SDLC transition, but no specifics are given. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like it_ops_triage_growth_loop_to_sdlc or it_ops_website_sdlc_intake.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid using it, or which scenarios it is best suited for.
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. Description only mentions routing through an API with JWT, tenant, and company scope. Does not disclose mutation behavior, permission requirements, or rate limits. 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?
Description is short but includes unnecessary routing detail. The docstring format is reasonable but could be more agent-friendly. Length is appropriate but content is lacking.
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 simple tool with one parameter, the description fails to explain purpose, input format, or behavior. Output schema exists but is not referenced. Significant gaps remain.
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 one parameter 'arguments' with 0% coverage. Description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which merely restates the parameter name without explaining the structure or content required (e.g., issue keys, link type). Adds no meaningful value.
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 tool is for linking issues in Jira but lacks specifics about what linking issues means (e.g., creating issue links with types like relates to, blocks). It is not a tautology but is 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 compared to other Jira tools like jira_add_comment or jira_create_issue. No context about when linking is appropriate.
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?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing scope. No side effects, authorization needs, or behavioral traits are disclosed. The tool's effect (read, write, mutation) is entirely unclear.
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 three sentences plus arg descriptions. No unnecessary information, but the brevity sacrifices clarity about the tool's core function.
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 output schema (unseen) and two optional parameters, the description lacks essential context: what dpa_review does, what it returns, or any prerequisites. It feels like a stub.
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 the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, which adds basic meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify expected structure or constraints for either parameter.
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?
The description states it runs the 'dpa_review' action but does not explain what that action does. It repeats the tool name without defining the purpose or distinguishing it from siblings like legal_contract_review or legal_dpia. The routing details are secondary.
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 alternative legal tools. No context or exclusion criteria are provided, leaving the agent to guess based on the name.
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. Description only mentions routing and authentication (JWT, tenant, company scope). Lacks info on whether the operation is read-only, pagination, response structure, or any side effects. Output schema exists but description does not hint at 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is brief but contains redundancy (repeats tool name in first sentence). Front-loads routing details before stating purpose. Could be more streamlined.
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?
Even with output schema, the description fails to specify which drive (OneDrive vs SharePoint), the scope of files listed, or any filtering options. Incomplete for a file 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 coverage is 0%. The description merely restates the parameter name and type ('JSON string of arguments') without explaining what keys/values are expected inside the JSON. Does not help the agent construct valid arguments.
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 lists drive files, but does not specify whether it covers OneDrive, SharePoint, or both. The sibling tool 'microsoft_list_sharepoint_drive_items' exists, but the description does not differentiate. Purpose 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 other Microsoft listing tools like microsoft_list_sharepoint_drive_items or microsoft_list_emails. The agent is left to infer context 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 provided, and the description only contains routing boilerplate. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, permissions needed, or side effects of archiving a board.
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 includes irrelevant routing details. It front-loads the operation name but lacks structured 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's action (archiving a board), the description is too sparse. There is no output schema, no examples, and no explanation of the archiving process, 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no specified structure. The description provides no hints about required keys, making it impossible for the agent to know what to supply.
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 name 'monday_archive_board' and the description mention 'archive_board', but do not clarify what archiving entails (e.g., hides, moves, or deletes the board). This leaves ambiguity for the agent.
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 monday_delete_board or monday_duplicate_board. The agent cannot determine appropriate 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 disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication (JWT, tenant, company scope), which are infrastructure details, not behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or what happens on creation. The lack of behavioral context 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (3 sentences) but under-specified. It lacks crucial operational details, making it too brief to be helpful. While concise, it sacrifices completeness and front-loads unimportant routing information over substantive purpose or usage.
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 creating an item in Monday.com (which typically requires board, group, and column values), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, what the arguments JSON should contain, or what the output looks like. The presence of an output schema does not mitigate the lack of 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% with a single 'arguments' parameter of type string. The description adds only 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which minimally explains that it's a JSON payload but does not specify expected keys (e.g., board_id, group_id, column_values). This fails to compensate for the bare schema.
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 'create_item' which clearly indicates creating an item, a verb+resource pair. However, it does not explain what an 'item' means in Monday.com context (e.g., a task or row in a board), leaving ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with Monday. It does not distinguish it from siblings like monday_create_subitem or monday_create_update beyond the 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 other Monday tools (e.g., monday_create_board, monday_create_subitem). No mention of prerequisites like existing board or group, nor any alternatives. The description provides no context for proper 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?
The description mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the response contains. With no annotations, this lack of behavioral context 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes irrelevant routing info that does not aid tool selection. It could be more concise and front-loaded with the actual purpose and usage.
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 single parameter with no schema description and no behavioral details, the description is incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the agent lacks essential context to correctly invoke the tool (e.g., what inputs to provide).
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 states that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation but does not specify what keys or values are expected. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it only adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.
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 'get_block' as a Notion connector operation, but it does not clarify what a block is in Notion context or distinguish it from similar notions like notion_get_page or notion_get_comment. 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 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision 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 must fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing and authentication but does not state that the tool is read-only, describe side effects, or explain output format, even though an output schema exists.
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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, the routing detail is of marginal relevance and could be omitted or integrated more efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and output explanation, forcing the agent to rely on external knowledge.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments', which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, and no details about expected keys (e.g., filters, pagination) are provided, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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 'list_users' and 'list users', which conveys the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about which users (e.g., workspace members) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like notion_get_user.
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., notion_get_user, notion_search). The description only states what it does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. No information on rate limits, permissions, or output behavior 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, with a clear title, a routing line, and a simple arg list. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the purpose could be more front-loaded.
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 an output schema existing, the description does not explain return values or result format. It also fails to contextualize how sprint_plan relates to other notion tools or what the action accomplishes, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage.
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 description adds basic parameter descriptions ('message: Free-text objective', 'inputs: Optional JSON string'), which is valuable since the JSON schema has 0% coverage. However, it lacks detail like constraints, example formats, or what constitutes valid input, so it only partially compensates.
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?
The description identifies the tool as running a specific notion domain agent action 'sprint_plan', but fails to explain what sprint_plan does or its intended purpose. Without a clear verb and resource description, the agent cannot differentiate this from other notion actions like notion_chat or notion_create_page.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.
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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions routing infrastructure and does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, reversibility, required permissions).
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 short but front-loaded with routing details that are not core to purpose. It could be more concise by omitting infrastructure information and focusing on 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?
With only one parameter and an output schema, the description still fails to explain what the tool does, expected arguments, or return behavior. It is insufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value by stating the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string, but does not specify expected contents (e.g., page_id) or structure.
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?
Description states it is a 'trash_page' operation, which implies moving a page to trash, but does not explicitly clarify what trashing entails. Among sibling tools like 'notion_archive_page', the description lacks differentiation. It merely restates the name and adds routing 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 'notion_archive_page' or 'notion_delete_block'. The description does not mention context, 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or any side effects. With no behavioral details, the agent cannot anticipate consequences.
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 not front-loaded with purpose; it begins with a redundant statement. It conveys basic info without waste, yet could be clearer and more efficiently structured.
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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no required params, and an output schema (not described), the description is too minimal. It omits return value hints, error conditions, and prerequisites, 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 only repeats the parameter name 'arguments' with a generic 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It adds no meaning about expected content (e.g., employee ID, date range) beyond the schema, which is insufficient.
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 identifies the tool as a QuickBooks connector operation for 'payroll_payslips', which implies it deals with payroll payslips. However, it does not specify the action (e.g., list, retrieve) and the title is null. It is distinguishable from siblings by the specific resource, but lacks clarity on what exactly the tool does with payslips.
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 other QuickBooks payroll tools. The description only mentions routing and scope, without indicating appropriate contexts, 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?
The description only mentions routing and authentication scope. It does not disclose whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires confirmation, or error handling for non-existent canvases.
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 (3 sentences) but lacks substantive guidance for an agent. It includes routing details that may be redundant in 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?
Despite having an output schema, no explanation of return values. No comparison to sibling tools. Critical usage details (what must be in the arguments JSON) are missing.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as a JSON string for the connector operation, with no details on required fields (e.g., canvas_id) or format. Schema coverage is 0%.
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 name and description state this deletes a Slack canvas, but no details on exactly what constitutes a canvas or how it differs from similar operations like slack_edit_canvas.
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 alternative canvas operations (create, edit, access). No prerequisites or context for deletion.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, idempotency, state changes, or permissions required, leaving the agent uninformed about 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 concise with two sentences and a parameter list. It is well-structured and free of unnecessary text, though it 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits return value details, error conditions, and when the tool is appropriate. Given the tool's complexity (domain agent action), the description is incomplete for effective agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly defines 'message' and 'inputs' but offers no examples, constraints, or format details. This minimal explanation does not adequately cover the missing schema information.
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?
The description states 'Run the smarthome domain agent action `scene_assist`' which merely restates the tool name with a generic verb. It does not explain what 'scene_assist' accomplishes (e.g., create, modify, or list scenes) or differentiate it from sibling tools like smarthome_command_plan or smarthome_event_review.
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 smarthome_chat or smarthome_automation_review. The description mentions routing details but lacks explicit 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits like read-only, side effects, or authentication needs. It only mentions generic routing through the API, offering no substantive behavioral context 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes boilerplate routing information that is unnecessary for understanding the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the name but contains some redundancy, making it average in 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 simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least clarify how to construct the 'arguments' string. It fails to do so, leaving a significant gap in input specification.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what keys or values to include (e.g., contact ID), providing no additional meaning beyond the schema's terse definition.
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's a 'get_contact' operation, which clearly indicates retrieving a contact. Among siblings like 'smokeball_create_contact' and 'smokeball_list_contacts', it distinguishes as a single-get tool. However, it lacks detail on what a contact is or what the tool returns, making it only moderately clear.
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 'smokeball_list_contacts' or 'smokeball_search'. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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 provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, permissions, rate limits) beyond generic routing info.
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 includes redundant routing information and does not front-load key details. The first sentence repeats the tool 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks clarity on what budget is retrieved (e.g., by ID) and the input requirements. It is incomplete for effective tool 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. It does not specify expected keys or structure.
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 'Xero connector operation get_budget' which indicates it retrieves a budget, but it is vague and does not specify what budget (e.g., by ID) or distinguish from siblings like xero_list_budgets.
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 xero_list_budgets or xero_budget_summary_report. 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?
The description mentions routing and scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose behavioral traits beyond that. With no annotations, the description should clarify that this is a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that. The routing info is generic and applies to all tools.
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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the operation name. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It is not overly wordy, but it could be more concise while still adding 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 tool's single generic parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description should provide context about what items are and what the response contains. It lacks this context, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, which essentially repeats the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should specify what keys or values are expected within that JSON string, but it fails to do so.
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?
The description merely repeats the operation name 'list_items' without explaining what 'items' are in the Xero context (e.g., products/services). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like xero_list_invoices or xero_list_contacts, leaving the resource type 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description does not help the agent choose between this and other listing 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, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope, adding some auth context. But it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or limit implications. The lack of annotations combined with sparse description leaves 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 brief (three lines) and front-loaded with the tool name. However, the second section about routing is implementation detail that may distract from the core purpose. It is not overly long, but space is used inefficiently given the lack of 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not indicate what the tool returns or how to interpret results. The single parameter is poorly explained. With one param and no annotations, the description should provide far more context to make the tool usable.
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%, so the description must explain the sole parameter 'arguments'. It only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is generic and provides no specifics on expected structure, required fields, or defaults. The agent gains no understanding of how to construct valid input.
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 lists tax rates in Xero via the connector operation. It identifies the specific resource (tax_rates) and verb (list), distinguishing it from sibling tools like xero_list_invoices. However, it lacks specifics on what tax rates are included (e.g., all, active, etc.).
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not describe context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and similar tools like quickbooks_list_tax_rates.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is helpful, but it fails to state key aspects such as whether the operation is destructive, what side effects occur (e.g., invoice status change), or what the return value contains.
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 it is not concise in a value-adding sense—it omits essential details. It is adequately structured but incomplete.
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 paying a bill in Xero and the lack of annotations or meaningful parameter documentation, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool does, how to structure the arguments, or what the output schema contains.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with default '{}'. The description simply says 'arguments for the connector operation', adding no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient.
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 identifies the tool as 'pay_bill' but offers no elaboration on what paying a bill entails in Xero. The name implies the purpose, but it does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like xero_create_payment or xero_list_payments.
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 Xero payment-related tools available (e.g., xero_create_payment, xero_create_bill), the agent lacks context to select this tool appropriately.
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 whether the tool is read-only, idempotent, or any behavioral traits such as required permissions or side effects. It only mentions routing details.
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 includes repetitive information (e.g., full tool name mentioned twice). It could be more concise by removing redundant boilerplate while maintaining clarity.
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 parameter documentation and behavioral details, the description is incomplete for a report tool. Although an output schema exists, the description does not hint at what the report contains, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described merely as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema description coverage, no additional meaning is added. The description fails to specify required keys or structure for the arguments JSON.
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 is a 'profit_loss_report' but does not explicitly define what a profit and loss report is or use a clear verb like 'retrieve' or 'get'. The purpose is somewhat clear from the name but the description lacks explicit specification.
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 other Xero report tools (e.g., balance sheet, cash flow). The description does not differentiate the use case or provide context for selection among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not describe the actual operation's effects, required permissions, or whether it is destructive/idempotent.
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 at three sentences, but much of the content (routing info) is of low value to an agent. It could be restructured to front-load the purpose and key constraints.
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 having a single parameter and an output schema, the description fails to explain the necessary argument structure or the tool's expected outcome. The routing details are irrelevant to the agent's decision to use 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only states that the single 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string. It does not explain what fields the JSON should contain, leaving the agent without necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 tool name 'upload_attachment' suggests a verb+resource, but the description does not specify what entity the attachment is uploaded to (e.g., invoice, contact). It mentions it is a Xero connector operation, but lacks explicit purpose relative to sibling tools like xero_upload_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xero_upload_file or other attachment-related tools. The description provides no usage context 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 must convey behavioral traits. It mentions authentication routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has any destructive effects. The absence of such information leaves the agent uncertain 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 short (3 sentences) but not optimally front-loaded. It begins with the tool name and routing detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...'), which may distract from the core purpose. While it is concise, it sacrifices clarity and 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?
The description is severely incomplete given the absence of annotations and minimal schema. It does not explain what folders are returned, how to interpret the output (despite having an output schema), or any limitations. The agent cannot effectively use this tool based solely on the description.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. It does not specify what keys or values are expected for listing folders, such as parent folder ID, pagination, or filters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 performs a 'list_folders' operation but does not specify what entity's folders are being listed (e.g., document folders, matter folders). The context of Clio suggests legal practice management, but the description lacks resource specificity, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'clio_list_documents' or 'clio_list_matters'.
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., clio_list_documents, clio_list_matters). There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.
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 routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, providing some authentication context. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, return format) beyond what is implied by the name. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus one line) but not optimally structured. It front-loades the name and routing, but the parameter section is vague. It is acceptably concise but 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about the operation's behavior, prerequisites, or typical use, making it minimally complete for a simple introspection 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 only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying valid keys or structure. This adds no meaningful semantic value, leaving the agent without guidance on how to form arguments.
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 identifies the tool as a 'who_am_i' operation, implying it returns current user info, but does not explicitly state what the tool does or how it differs from sibling tools like 'whoami' or other Clio tools. The purpose is implied but not clearly defined.
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. With siblings like 'whoami' (different casing) and numerous Clio tools, the description offers no 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 carries the full burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the tool has side effects, what it returns (beyond existence of output schema), or any other 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?
The description is short and directly states the action, but it is not front-loaded with a clear summary. The single sentence explaining the action is followed by routing details and then the arg list, which is structurally adequate but could be more 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?
The tool has an output schema but the description does not reference what the tool returns or elaborate on the codegraph concept. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, the description leaves significant gaps about expected inputs and outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic semantics but lacks detail about format or expected content.
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?
The description states 'Run the coding domain agent action `build_codegraph`' which is nearly tautological with the tool name. It does not explain what building a codegraph accomplishes or how it differs from sibling tools like coding_chat or coding_explain_code.
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. The description contains no conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools for comparison.
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 authentication scope but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. Critical behavioral traits 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 four sentences, but the first sentence is tautological. It could be more concise and front-loaded with useful information. The arg descriptions are clear but the overall structure wastes the opening line.
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 an output schema (implied) and no annotations, the description should cover return values and behavioral constraints. It fails to describe outputs, side effects, or how to distinguish from similar tools. It is incomplete for a coding action with many siblings.
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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, with only two parameters and schema description coverage at 0%, this added value is minimal and does not fully compensate.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('Run the coding domain agent action process_ticket_with_branch') without clarifying what 'process_ticket_with_branch' means. It vaguely mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not specify the tool's primary function or how it differs from similar tools like coding_process_single_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The sibling list includes coding_process_single_ticket, which sounds similar, but the description offers no differentiating context or usage cues.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, rate limits, or what action it performs. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the 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 relatively short but includes unnecessary implementation detail about the dispatcher routing. It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's purpose and behavior rather than internal routing. The parameter descriptions are clear but add little 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?
Although an output schema exists (freeing the description from explaining return values), the description fails to elaborate on what the `connector_health_summary` action actually does. The agent is left to guess the nature of the health summary, making the description incomplete for effective selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `message` as 'Free-text objective for the action' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action,' which adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults. However, it remains vague about the expected format or content of these parameters.
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?
The description restates the tool name as 'Run the commerce domain agent action `connector_health_summary`' without explaining what a connector health summary is or what it accomplishes. It offers no differentiation from sibling tools like `commerce_sync_status` or others, leaving the agent with only the name to infer 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about ideal scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it, which is critical given the large number of commerce-related sibling 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?
Description mentions routing via domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as whether the action is read-only or destructive, rate limits, response time, or side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide this 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?
Short description with no wasted text but poorly structured. A single paragraph without clear separation of routing info and parameter details. Acceptable but not exemplary.
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 having an output schema, the description omits the tool's purpose in the commerce domain. It does not explain what the supplier evaluation accomplishes, how results are presented, or how it fits with related tools. Incomplete for an evaluation action.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: 'message' is free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON. This clarifies types but lacks format constraints or examples. Barely adequate.
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?
Description restates the tool name ('Run... supplier_evaluation') without clarifying the business purpose. It mentions technical routing but fails to state what evaluating suppliers entails or how it differs from sibling tools like commerce_supplier_search or procurement_supplier_evaluation. The phrase 'free-text objective' is 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. Sibling tools include commerce_supplier_search and procurement_supplier_evaluation, but the description provides no context for choosing this one. No prerequisites 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not state whether the action is read-only, modifies state, or what response format is expected. Transparency 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 short (three sentences) but includes routing details that may not help in tool selection. The first sentence is redundant with the tool name. It could be more informative while remaining 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 tool's simplicity (2 optional params, no enums, output schema exists), the description should explain when to use it and what results to expect. It lacks guidance on usage context, return values, and differentiation from similar tools, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' adding some meaning. However, the descriptions are vague and do not specify valid formats, constraints, or examples, leaving significant ambiguity.
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?
The description states 'Run the commerce domain agent action supplier_search,' which is nearly tautological with the tool name. It does not explicitly state that the tool searches for suppliers, requiring inference. The routing details do not clarify the core 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like commerce_supplier_evaluation or commerce_procurement_brief. The description lacks context for appropriate use cases 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 provided. The description only mentions routing and scoping, but does not disclose whether the sweep is a read or write operation, what side effects occur, or any required permissions. 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 the first sentence is redundant with the name. It could be more concise by merging the routing detail into a more informative purpose statement.
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 having an output schema (as indicated by context), the description does not explain the return value or expected outcome of the sweep. This omission leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool produces.
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%, but the description adds brief explanations for message (free-text objective) and inputs (optional JSON string). While minimal, this does add some meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.
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?
The description largely restates the tool name and mentions routing through a dispatcher, but does not specify what the action actually does. It fails to clarify that the sweep processes or triggers subscription renewals.
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 other customer success or finance tools. Siblings include many related tools like renewal status and billing inquiry, but no differentiation 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?
Describes creation of a token but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it replaces existing tokens, permission implications, token lifetime defaults, or that it is a write operation. No annotations 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?
Single sentence is concise but omits critical information. 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?
Very sparse for a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema. No mention of return value, error conditions, or behavior on duplicate token. Leaves agent with minimal 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% (no parameter descriptions). Description provides no explanation of session_id, role, or expires_in_seconds. Defaults are present in schema but no semantics added.
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 (create) and resource (share-link token for document builder session). Distinguishable from siblings like doc_builder_add_collaborator. However, lacks specificity about what the token enables (e.g., view-only vs edit).
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 doc_builder_add_collaborator. No context about prerequisites (e.g., session must exist) 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some context, but it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, has rate limits, or what the output format is. The behavioral traits are minimally specified.
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 not verbose, but the first sentence is a tautology that could be removed without loss. The parameter descriptions are minimal. Overall, it is adequately concise but not efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a dispatch to a domain agent) and the 0% schema coverage, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the search will return (despite an output schema existing), nor does it clarify the expected structure of the 'inputs' parameter. The tool's purpose and output are only partially covered.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' While this adds some meaning, it remains vague (e.g., what constitutes an objective? what structured inputs are expected?). The description provides marginal value beyond the schema's parameter names.
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?
The description states 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `search_folder`,' which is essentially a tautology that restates the tool's name. It does not specify what searching a folder means (e.g., listing documents, searching content, or retrieving folder metadata). Without distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_folder' or 'document_intelligence_search_documents', the purpose remains unclear.
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 alternative tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without criteria for selecting this tool over similar ones in the sibling list.
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 mentions scoping under JWT/tenant/company but does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any prerequisites. The user is left guessing about 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 relatively short and includes both the tool's purpose and parameter explanations in a few lines. It is not overly verbose, but some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the tool 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?
The tool has an output schema, so return value details are not strictly required, but the description lacks a clear statement of what the tool produces (e.g., a forecast). It also omits context about when to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
Although the JSON schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), the description text includes explicit parameter documentation: 'message' is a 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds meaningful detail beyond the 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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action `finance_automl_forecast`') without specifying what the action actually does. It fails to clarify that this tool is for generating financial forecasts, which is implied by the name but not stated.
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. Among sibling tools are many finance-related tools like 'finance_forecasting', 'finance_forecast_interpretation', etc., but the description offers no differentiation 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose loop behavior, side effects, or async nature. Minimal transparency beyond infrastructure detail.
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 not verbose, but it lacks substance. It could include more useful information without becoming excessively long.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not visible) and no annotations, the description fails to explain what the autonomous finance loop entails, what the tool returns, or how it fits into the broader finance domain. Very incomplete for a complex-sounding 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 descriptions are 0% covered. The description adds basic semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON string, but no further detail or examples. Marginal improvement over schema 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 the tool runs 'autonomous_finance_loop' and routes via the dispatcher, but does not explain what the loop actually does, making it vague and not well differentiated from sibling tools like finance_chat.
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 other finance domain tools. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not indicate whether the tool reads, creates, or modifies data, any side effects, or required permissions. The effect of the action is entirely 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 short but includes implementation details about routing that are not immediately useful for an agent deciding to invoke the tool. It could be more concise and front-loaded with the actual purpose rather than the action 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?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete for a complex packet-generation tool. It does not explain what a collation packet is, what inputs trigger specific behaviors, or how it differs from similar finance packet tools. The agent cannot infer the tool's capabilities from this description alone.
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 description adds basic meaning to both parameters: 'message' is described as a free-text objective, and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is an improvement over the schema (which has no descriptions), but the descriptions remain vague and do not specify expected format or constraints.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action data_room_collation_packet') without explaining what a data room collation packet is or what the action does. It fails to distinguish from sibling finance packet tools like finance_board_pack or finance_due_diligence_packet.
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 typical scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only notes routing details, not 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 carries the full burden. It mentions routing and authentication (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits any behavioral details: side effects, output nature, or whether the tool creates/modifies data. The agent cannot infer what happens upon invocation.
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 very concise with no extraneous text. It front-loads the action name and then lists parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, though more content would be beneficial.
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 presence of an output schema (not elaborated), the description fails to convey the tool's overall capability. For a complex finance model creation tool, it lacks information on expected outputs, success criteria, or how it differs from peer tools. The agent is left with an incomplete understanding.
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 the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This provides baseline clarity but lacks specifics on expected structure or examples, leaving the agent to guess the format.
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?
The description names the action 'finance_dcf_lbo_spreadsheet' but does not explain what DCF/LBO spreadsheet means or what the tool actually accomplishes. It is nearly tautological ('Run the ... action') and provides no distinction from sibling tools like 'finance_lbo_model'.
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 such as 'finance_lbo_model' or 'finance_plan_domain_intelligence'. There is no mention of expected objectives, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, but does not disclose side effects, read/write nature, rate limits, or any behavioral traits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 includes boilerplate about routing and scope that does not add value. It could be more focused on the tool's core purpose and parameters. It is not well-structured for quick comprehension.
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?
An output schema exists but is not described. The description does not explain return values, how to structure inputs beyond basic types, or any expected behavior. For a tool with two parameters and an output schema, more completeness is needed.
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 the description must compensate. It clarifies that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, though it remains minimal. Baseline for 0% coverage is low, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states "finance domain agent action `finance_deep_research_due_diligence`" but does not explain what due diligence entails. It is vague and does little more than restate the name, failing to differentiate the tool from siblings like `finance_due_diligence` or `finance_due_diligence_packet`.
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 exclusions. Among many similar finance tools, the description offers no help in selecting this one.
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 only states that routing occurs under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not disclose side effects, destructiveness, permissions, or what the handoff entails.
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 includes a redundant first line that repeats the tool name. It is structured with a brief docstring-like format, but is not ideally 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 (many siblings, no annotations, optional parameters, existing output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, when it should be used, or provide enough detail for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description briefly explains parameters: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some meaning beyond the empty schema descriptions, but remains vague and does not specify expected formats or constraints.
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?
The description repeats the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action ...') and vaguely mentions routing through a dispatcher, but does not define what a 'domain artifact handoff' is or what it accomplishes. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like it_ops_domain_artifact_handoff.
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 other finance domain tools or sibling artifact handoffs. Prerequisites, context, and alternatives are not 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 only mentions routing through a dispatcher and auth scope, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, what side effects occur, or how results are returned. The existence of an output schema is not referenced.
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?
Three sentences, no redundancy beyond the first sentence which tautologically repeats the tool name. Adequately concise but not logically front-loaded; the routing context is less important than the tool's purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or behavior. With no annotations and sparse parameter docs, the description leaves critical gaps for a tool that likely performs a complex sensitivity analysis.
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 description adds marginal value over the schema: 'message' is described as free-text objective, 'inputs' as optional JSON. With 0% schema coverage, this clarifies some intent but remains vague about expected JSON structure or how the message is used.
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?
Description states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_forecast_sensitivity' but does not explain what the tool does or what sensitivity analysis entails. It lacks a verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like finance_forecasting or finance_forecast_interpretation.
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 finance_forecast_interpretation or finance_automl_forecast. The description provides no context for selection 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 mentions routing via the platform dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, mutates data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The actual agent action behavior 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and somewhat front-loaded, but the first line is redundant ('Run the finance domain agent action'). While not overly verbose, it could be more concise by omitting the tautology.
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 having an output schema, the description does not clarify what 'fund metrics' entails or what kind of results to expect. The tool seems to be a generic domain action runner, but the description lacks completeness for an agent to correctly anticipate its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `message` as a 'free-text objective for the action' and `inputs` as an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds basic meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks constraints, examples, or format specifications.
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?
The description starts with 'Run the finance domain agent action `finance_fund_metrics`,' which is essentially a tautology repeating the tool name. It does not specify what 'fund metrics' means or what the tool actually accomplishes (e.g., retrieve fund performance, calculate ratios). The phrase 'free-text objective' suggests a generic action, but the specific purpose is unclear.
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 other finance tools (e.g., finance_chat, finance_forecasting). There are no conditions for use, alternatives, or exclusions. The agent has no help deciding between this and sibling 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, or what the tool modifies. The name implies a multi-step lifecycle but the description gives no detail.
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 mostly concise, but the opening sentence is redundant with the tool name. The routing context is useful but could be integrated more efficiently. Every sentence contributes some 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 likely complexity of a 'full lifecycle loop' and the existence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or high-level outcome. It also fails to relate the tool to sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to both parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. Since schema coverage is 0%, this is necessary and adequate, though it could be more precise about expected format or constraints.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action goal_full_lifecycle_loop' but does not explain what the action does. It is essentially a tautology of the name, failing to specify the tool's function or differentiate it from siblings like finance_goal_plan or finance_goal_understand.
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. The description mentions routing through a dispatcher but offers no context for selection among sibling goal 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not indicate whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or rate-limited. The tool likely performs a write operation, but no side effects or consequences are described.
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 (three sentences plus args list), but the first sentence is a tautology and the second sentence about routing is implementation detail that may not help an agent. The args list is clear but lacks depth. Some conciseness is achieved 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 the tool appears to be a write action in the finance domain with an existing output schema, the description should explain the action's effect, prerequisites, and how it relates to sibling goal tools. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's role in a workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some context. However, it does not specify expected keys for the JSON or constraints on the free-text, leaving ambiguity.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action `goal_record_task_result`', which is essentially a tautology. It does not explain what recording a task result means—whether it creates, updates, or submits data. The verb 'Run' is vague, and the description fails to distinguish the tool's purpose from its 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance_goal_plan or finance_goal_execute_wave. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no decision criteria for tool 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 supplied, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher, with no indication of side effects, read-only status, or what the tool actually does (e.g., create or retrieve 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 short but spends space on authentication/routing details that are likely implicit. The critical purpose is not front-loaded, making it less efficient than it could be.
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?
The tool has an output schema, but the description still fails to explain what the action does, what inputs are for, or what the agent should expect. It is incomplete for a domain agent action that likely produces an important deliverable.
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 the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, which adds some context beyond the empty defaults, but it does not describe expected formats or constraints.
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?
The description restates the tool name ('finance quarterly ir pack') without clarifying what an 'IR pack' is or what the action produces. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like finance_board_pack or finance_saas_board_pack, leaving the purpose 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative finance tools. The description focuses on routing mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) rather than 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 the full burden. It mentions JWT, tenant, and company scope but does not disclose what the action does, side effects, required permissions, or expected outcomes. Minimal behavioral context is given.
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 includes unnecessary technical details about routing. It could be more concise by clearly stating the purpose first. Every sentence adds some value, but the structure could be improved for clarity.
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, low schema coverage, and two parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what reconciliation exceptions are, in what scenarios an agent should use this tool, or how the inputs affect behavior. Output schema exists but does not relieve the description of explaining the tool's purpose.
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 the description must add value. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, which provides some meaning beyond the schema's default names. However, it lacks examples or detailed format requirements, so it only partially compensates.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_reconciliation_exceptions,' which is vague and does not clearly define the business functionality. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like finance_reconciliation_sweep or other finance 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 versus alternatives. The description only mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher, which is technical context rather than usage guidance. No exclusions or alternative tools are indicated.
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 fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the action is read-only, modifies data, or requires specific permissions. The scope info (JWT, tenant, company) is present but insufficient for 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 concise (3 sentences plus args) but under-specified. Every sentence is relevant, but the conciseness sacrifices completeness. Structure is logical: action, routing, arguments.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or the tool's domain-specific role. It provides no context about what a revenue audit entails or how inputs shape the output. Incomplete for an AI agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond the schema's defaults and titles. However, it lacks specificity about valid input formats or examples.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as an action to run ('Run the finance domain agent action') and explains routing, but does not specify what the audit entails or distinguish it from sibling tools like stripe_account_health or finance_revenue_leakage. The purpose is 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the routing mechanism, not the appropriate context or exclusion 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes routing through a domain-agent dispatcher, but does not reveal whether the action is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or what the output format is. The lack of behavioral detail 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise, but the first sentence is largely tautological ('Run the finance domain agent action...'). The argument descriptions add value but the overall structure could be more direct and 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's complexity, zero schema coverage, and absence of output schema details, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the agent's behavior, or when the tool is appropriate. A user cannot fully assess what this tool delivers.
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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. While this is better than nothing, it does not explain expected content or structure, leaving much to interpretation.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_stripe_subscription_health' which essentially restates the tool name without explaining what 'subscription health' means or what the agent does. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like finance_stripe_dunning_recovery or finance_subscription_health_to_expansion.
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 preconditions, contexts, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess the appropriate scenario for subscription health checks.
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 should disclose behavior like side effects, permissions, or irreversibility. It only mentions routing, not the cancellation effect.
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 but wastes space on routing details that may be unnecessary. It could be more concise and 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?
For a mutation tool, the description is extremely incomplete. It lacks prerequisites, return values, and any behavioral context, leaving the agent 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments'—identical to the schema title. No details on required fields or structure, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 name clearly indicates the action (cancel workflow run), and the description reinforces it but offers no additional detail. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rerun' by name, but the description does not explicitly differentiate.
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 cancel vs rerun or other alternatives. The description omits any 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but lacks details on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only or mutating. This is insufficient for a domain agent 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?
Description is reasonably concise but includes technical routing details that could be inferred. The first sentence is tautological. It could be front-loaded with a clearer business purpose. Overall adequate but not optimized.
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?
Even with an output schema present, the description fails to convey the tool's business purpose or typical use cases. The agent is left without understanding what hr_cases_pulse_loop accomplishes, especially among many HR sibling tools. Incomplete for effective decision-making.
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?
Description explicitly states that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, with 0% schema coverage, this minimal explanation is acceptable but not detailed, e.g., no examples or constraints.
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?
Description merely states 'Run the hr domain agent action hr_cases_pulse_loop' which is tautological and doesn't clarify what the action does. The name suggests HR cases and pulse, but no explicit purpose is given, making it hard to distinguish from similar HR tools like hr_pulse or hr_live_cases.
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 context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess when hr_cases_pulse_loop is appropriate compared to other HR 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but omits critical behavioral traits: whether the action is destructive, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur.
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?
Four sentences including the Args list; the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. Reasonably concise but could be more efficient by merging the opening into a clearer purpose statement.
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 an output schema existing (which may describe returns), the description fails to explain the core functionality or expected outcomes of the action. The tool's generic nature and vague name leave the agent without sufficient context to decide usage.
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 description adds that 'inputs' is an optional JSON string and 'message' is a free-text objective. With 0% schema description coverage, this provides basic interpretation but lacks details on valid formats or example values, leaving significant ambiguity.
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?
The description states 'Run the it_ops domain agent action aws_account_control' which is tautological (restates the tool name). It does not specify what 'aws_account_control' actually accomplishes (e.g., creating, modifying, or listing account settings). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like it_ops_aws_cli that also target AWS.
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 other AWS-related tools (e.g., it_ops_aws_cli, it_ops_aws_cli_execute). The description only mentions routing details, not appropriate contexts 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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to detail side effects, permissions, or any action-specific outcomes. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 clear formatting for arguments. It avoids fluff, though the routing detail could be more compact. Every sentence adds some 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?
Despite an output schema existing (so return values are not required), the description fails to convey the action's core purpose or expected outcomes. It feels incomplete for a domain agent action, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's functionality.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description explains both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles.
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?
The description primarily states it runs the 'it_ops domain agent action `development_kickoff`', which is tautological. It does not clarify what the action does, only that it routes through a dispatcher. The name suggests a development kickoff, but the purpose remains vague.
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 its many siblings (e.g., other it_ops tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher' without explaining side effects, read/write nature, or permissions. The description adds little 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes internal routing details that are unlikely to help the agent. It could be more concise by omitting the routing line and focusing on actionable content. The structure is adequate but not optimal.
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?
The description does not mention the output schema despite its existence, nor does it explain what the action returns or accomplishes. Given the tool is part of a family of domain agents, critical context about the action's outcome is missing.
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 description adds brief parameter meanings ('Free-text objective for the action' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') which are not present in the schema (0% coverage). However, the explanations lack examples or constraints, offering only minimal guidance.
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?
The description says 'Run the it_ops domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence' but does not clarify what 'plan_domain_intelligence' actually does. It fails to differentiate from many siblings with the same pattern (e.g., coding_plan_domain_intelligence, commerce_plan_domain_intelligence), leaving the agent without a clear understanding of the tool's 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not advise on selecting among the many domain-specific 'plan_domain_intelligence' 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?
Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions JWT, tenant, and company scope routing, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., does it generate recommendations, modify resources?), rate limits, or what happens on invocation. The agent is left guessing about outcomes.
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 (two sentences plus arg docs), but it is not optimally structured. Key information (the purpose of the action) is missing, and it does not front-load the most critical details. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of clarity.
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 an output schema, return values need not be described, but the description still lacks essential context: what rightsizing recommendations are, what the action does, how the free-text message is used, and what structured inputs are expected. For a tool with two undocumented parameters, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. While this adds some meaning, it remains generic and does not specify expected content or format beyond the schema's defaults.
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?
The description states it runs a domain agent action named 'rightsizing_recommendations', but does not define what rightsizing recommendations are or how they differ from sibling tools like it_ops_analyze_cost or it_ops_detect_waste. The purpose is vague; an agent cannot determine when to invoke this over similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 context on prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions. The description only explains the routing mechanism, not 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 carries the full burden. It discloses routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not mention behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, error handling, or output behavior. The existence of an output schema is not referenced.
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 the first sentence is redundant (restates the tool name). The routing context is useful. The argument list is clear but minimal. Overall, it is adequately concise but could be more efficient by avoiding 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 of the tool (part of a triage workflow with many siblings), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the action's purpose, differentiation from siblings, and any mention of the output schema. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by clarifying 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. However, it does not specify expected JSON structure or provide examples, leaving ambiguity. The baseline is 3 because it partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description largely restates the tool name ('Run the it_ops domain agent action triage_growth_loop_to_sdlc') without explaining what the action does. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like it_ops_triage_sdlc_intake or it_ops_website_growth_loop_to_sdlc. The purpose is vague; 'triage_growth_loop_to_sdlc' implies a specific workflow but is not elaborated.
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, when not to use it, or comparisons to other triage-related tools. The agent receives no context for appropriate selection among many 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing and JWT scope, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral impact of 'rank_backlog' is 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 (two sentences). While concise, it lacks essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently 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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description should still explain the purpose and usage of 'rank_backlog' more fully. It fails to provide a complete picture, especially regarding return values or error conditions.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described simply as a JSON string. With 0% schema coverage, the description should clarify expected keys or structure, but it does not, leaving the agent uninformed about how to construct valid input.
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 identifies the tool as a Jira connector operation for 'rank_backlog', which implies reordering the backlog, but does not explicitly state the verb and resource with sufficient clarity. The name itself is descriptive, but the description adds little beyond that.
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 alternative Jira tools (e.g., jira_bulk_transition, jira_update_issue). No context is provided about prerequisites or typical 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, creates/modifies data, or has side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise but contains redundancy (first sentence restates the tool name). It could be more streamlined without losing meaning.
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 an output schema and two simple parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not summarize what the packet contains, what the output looks like, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by describing `message` as 'Free-text objective for the action' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides basic semantics but lacks detail on expected formats or constraints.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action `partnership_agreement_packet`', which is nearly tautological and fails to explain what the tool actually produces or accomplishes. It does not clarify that it generates a partnership agreement packet, leaving the purpose 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `legal_partnership_onboarding_loop` or `legal_nda_packet`. No context or selection criteria are given, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly.
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 must cover behavioral aspects. It only states the action without disclosing idempotency, reversibility, authentication needs, side effects, or response format.
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 at 6 words, but it sacrifices helpful details. It is front-loaded but too minimal to be fully 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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks explanation of the parameter and any behavioral context. Given that no annotations or output schema details are provided, it is incomplete for confident 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 parameter. It does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name 'notification_id'. The value type or expected format is missing.
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 'Mark' and resource 'a notification' with the action 'as read'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mark_all_notifications_read' by implying a single notification, though not explicitly.
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 this tool should be used versus alternatives (e.g., mark_all_notifications_read). It does not mention prerequisites like listing notifications first.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds context about routing and authentication (JWT, tenant, company scope) which is useful, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, rate limits, or other 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?
The description is short (three sentences) but lacks essential information. It is not verbose, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with a generic arguments parameter), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool effectively, such as what to include in 'arguments' or how the output is structured, despite the presence of an output schema.
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 only states 'arguments is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining what arguments are expected. This adds minimal meaning beyond the 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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'list_teams' without clarifying what 'teams' refers to (e.g., Microsoft Teams teams). It does not provide a verb+resource definition that helps distinguish it from other Microsoft list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 microsoft_list_team_channels or other Microsoft tools. No exclusions or context for appropriate use are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only provides routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), not behavioral traits like side effects, required permissions, or output nature. The tool's actual behavior (reading a board) is implied but not disclosed.
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 wastes space on generic routing info rather than focusing on the tool's function. It lacks conciseness in delivering core purpose and parameters.
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 having an output schema, the description does not reference return values or board-specific details. It is too generic for a tool that retrieves a specific entity, missing essential context about board identification and response structure.
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 only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation. It adds no meaning about expected keys (e.g., board_id) or format, which is critical given the generic parameter name.
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 identifies it as a Monday.com 'get_board' operation but does not explicitly state that it retrieves a single board by ID or name. It vaguely suggests a board retrieval but fails to distinguish from siblings like 'monday_get_item' or 'monday_list_boards', leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'monday_list_boards' or 'monday_get_item'. The description omits any context about prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations provided. The description mentions routing through domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose side effects (read/write), rate limits, or what gets modified. Behavioral traits are not disclosed beyond basic routing.
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 includes a docstring format for parameters. However, it contains extraneous technical routing details that add little value for an agent. Could be more focused on the action's purpose.
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 that dispatches a domain agent action, the description lacks information about what the action accomplishes, expected outcomes, or return values. With an output schema available but not described, and many sibling tools, the context is insufficient.
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 compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON. This is helpful but still vague—no format, constraints, or examples.
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?
The description states it runs the 'comment_orchestrator' domain agent action but does not explain what that action does. The verb 'run' is generic and the resource 'notion domain agent action' is vague. Among sibling notion tools, no differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 notion_create_comment or notion_list_comments. No when-to-use or when-not-to 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 compensate but only provides routing details (JWT, tenant, scope). It does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral traits are largely 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 very short but includes unnecessary routing details that may not help the agent. The Args section is structured clearly. It is concise but at the expense of missing critical information, so it is not a model of 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 zero annotation coverage, 0% schema descriptions, and no output schema description, the tool is under-documented. The description does not explain return values, when to invoke, or how inputs relate to the action's behavior. It is incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the parameters by stating message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This goes beyond the schema which only has defaults. However, it lacks details on expected format, examples, or limitations.
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?
The description states it runs a domain agent action 'schema_intelligence' but does not explain what this action does. The purpose is vague, and it fails to differentiate from other Notion tools like notion_search or notion_query_database.
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 provide context for when schema_intelligence is appropriate, nor does it mention any 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose the tool's behavior. However, it only mentions routing details irrelevant to the agent and fails to state whether the operation is destructive, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 includes unnecessary infrastructure detail ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke...') that does not aid the AI agent. Every sentence should add value; the routing information is irrelevant for tool selection and use. A more concise and informative description would focus on the view update semantics.
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 a Notion connector update operation, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not specify what properties of a view can be updated, the return value (although output schema exists, it is not described), or any constraints. The agent lacks essential 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 one parameter ('arguments') with 0% description coverage. The description merely repeats that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining the expected structure, keys, or valid values. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but 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 identifies the tool as 'Notion connector operation update_view', which combines a specific verb ('update') and resource ('view'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_update_page or notion_update_database. However, it does not explain what a Notion view is or what updating one entails, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given the many similar Notion update tools, the lack of usage direction is a significant gap.
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 mentions routing details but does not state whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, requires specific permissions, or has 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 brief but wastes space on a tautological first sentence and internal routing details. It could be more concise and front-load the actual purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to clarify what 'workspace inventory' entails. The tool appears to be a domain agent action, but without explaining its function, the agent cannot effectively determine when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding minimal meaning beyond parameter names. These are vague but provide some guidance.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'notion domain agent action workspace_inventory' without explaining what the action does. It fails to provide a specific verb+resource, leaving the purpose unclear.
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. Given many sibling Notion tools and other domain agent actions, the description offers no differentiation or 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 exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with scoping but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the tool mutates data, triggers side effects, or has rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but includes unnecessary implementation details ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') that could be omitted. It is moderately 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits what the tool actually does (e.g., what it returns, whether it modifies data). The context is incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs are an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is helpful but still vague, leaving the format and purpose of inputs unclear.
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?
The description states 'Run the product domain agent action roadmap_prioritize', which is tautological. It fails to explain what prioritization means or what the tool outputs, leaving the purpose 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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like product_roadmap_plan. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria 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. Description only states it is a connector operation and routes through an endpoint. No disclosure of side effects, auth needs, or 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short but lacks necessary details. Front-loaded name but fails to provide useful information beyond repitition.
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 generic nature and sibling tools, the description should explain what entities are listed. It does not, leaving the tool incomplete despite an output schema.
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?
Single parameter 'arguments' with default '{}'. Description adds minimal meaning: 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.
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 lists entities but does not specify which entities. Sibling tools like quickbooks_list_accounts indicate this is a generic list, causing ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus more specific list tools. No exclusions or context 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; description only says 'enable or disable', which implies mutation but omits side effects, permissions, or behavior when the rule doesn't exist.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters, sacrificing necessary detail 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?
Despite presence of an output schema, the description provides no context about inputs, outputs, or behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use 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 has 2 parameters with 0% coverage; description does not mention parameters or add meaning to 'preference_id' or 'enabled' beyond what the schema already indicates.
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 enables or disables an auto-accept rule, aligning with the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling 'create_approval_auto_accept' (which creates) but is vague about what preference it affects.
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 like 'create_approval_auto_accept' or 'list_approval_preferences'. Context for usage is missing.
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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the operation without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the channel is already unarchived. This is insufficient for informed 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 short (3 sentences), but includes an unnecessary implementation detail about routing through '/api/tools/invoke'. This detracts from conciseness and could be removed.
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, the description should cover permissions, preconditions (e.g., channel state), and return value. It does none of these. The presence of an output schema (indicated in context) is not used to reduce the burden, but the description still fails to explain input requirements.
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 a single 'arguments' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description only repeats that it is a JSON string of arguments, offering no explanation of expected fields (e.g., channel_id). This adds no 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 tool name 'slack_unarchive_channel' clearly indicates it unarchives a Slack channel. The description reinforces this by stating it is the 'unarchive_channel' connector operation. However, it lacks specifics on what 'unarchive' entails (e.g., restoring the channel to active 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_archive_channel, or on prerequisites such as permissions or membership. The description offers no 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not describe the effect on the workflow step, whether it is destructive, or what the output is. 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 short but includes redundant details like the full platform tool name and path. It could be more concise by front-loading the purpose. Every sentence earns its place but could be improved.
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 there is an output schema and only one parameter, the description should explain the tool's purpose and when to use it. It fails to provide a semantic explanation, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: it says 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation. This repeats the parameter name slightly but does not specify expected keys or format. Adequately compensates the lack of schema descriptions only partially.
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?
The description does not state the tool's action. It only gives the platform tool name and routing path, without explaining that it marks a workflow step as failed. This is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling like slack_workflows_step_completed.
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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., slack_workflows_step_completed). The description lacks 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, side effects, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly longer to include critical 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?
The description is incomplete for a tool with an output schema and no annotations. It lacks information about return format, argument structure, and any important constraints.
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 one parameter 'arguments' with no description. The description adds that it is a JSON string for the connector operation but does not specify the expected keys or format, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 lists appointments from Square, which is clear but lacks elaboration. It does not differentiate from sibling tools or specify the scope of appointments.
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 when not to use it or any 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only implies a mutation ('create') but does not state side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens if creation fails. This is a significant gap 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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes routing information, which may be extraneous but does not severely hinder clarity. Every sentence contributes, though some 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?
For a simple create tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits behavioral details, usage guidelines, and internal parameter expectations. The agent would need significant external knowledge or trial-and-error 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. However, the description does not specify the expected internal structure or keys required for the underlying Stripe operation, leaving the agent undersupported.
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 is a Stripe connector operation to create an invoice, but it merely restates the name without elaborating on what creating an invoice entails. It is a minimal clarification, not a tautology, but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 like stripe_create_refund or stripe_list_invoices. There is no mention of prerequisites, preconditions, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided.
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 the basic action with no details on side effects, irreversibility, permissions, errors, or outcomes. Critical behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence. While it is front-loaded, it is too terse to be helpful. The sentence barely adds value 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?
Given the tool has an output schema and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks context on what a Xero proposal is, the effect of rejection, and how to interpret output, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.
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 parameters (proposal_id, reason). Although parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, their semantics (format, usage of reason) are not clarified, leaving ambiguity.
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 'Reject a Xero proposal.' clearly states the action (reject) and resource (Xero proposal). It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_agent_approve_proposal.
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 specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like approving or creating proposals, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for rejection.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not indicate safety characteristics (read-only vs. destructive), rate limits, or side effects. The behavior after invocation 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 very short but not concise in an informative way. It wastes the first sentence restating the name and platform path. The second sentence provides routing context that might be obvious. The parameter description is generic. It lacks structure and meaningful content.
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 (financial report with output schema) and many sibling report tools, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output schema, return value format, or how it differs from similar reports. The agent would need to infer behavior from the tool name alone.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining what keys or values are expected. The agent has little insight into correct usage.
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 is a 'cash_flow_report' operation, which names a specific Xero report. However, it does not explain what a cash flow report is or what it returns, and it fails to differentiate from sibling report tools like xero_balance_sheet_report or xero_profit_loss_report. The purpose is somewhat 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 other Xero report tools or alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions for invocation. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) and routing. There is no information about side effects (e.g., does it create a record immediately? Is it idempotent?). The description fails to convey what happens upon invocation beyond the 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 very short but lacks valuable content. It repeats the tool name and mentions routing, but the 'Args' line is out of place and adds little. Every sentence should provide useful information; these do not. The description is under-specified rather than 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 complexity of a purchase order operation, the description is severely incomplete. There is no information about required fields (e.g., supplier, line items), output format (despite having an output schema, it is not described), prerequisites, or error handling. The agent cannot use this tool effectively without external knowledge.
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 a single string parameter 'arguments' with no sub-schema or description. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' which is vague and provides no details about the expected structure, required fields, or example values. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input.
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 tool name 'create_purchase_order' clearly indicates it creates a purchase order. The description adds 'Xero connector operation' which reinforces the domain but does not distinguish it from sibling create operations like xero_create_bill or xero_create_invoice. No specific scope or differentiation is provided, but the verb+resource is clear.
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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left without any hint about appropriate use cases.
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 read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. The reference to routing is purely technical and not behavioral. The agent cannot infer safety or authorization needs.
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 brief with only three lines. However, it is not well-structured; the first line is redundant with the tool name. Despite the brevity, every sentence adds some information, but the overall structure could be improved.
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 (one parameter), the description is still incomplete. The agent lacks information about what constitutes valid arguments, the expected output beyond the output schema, and how this tool fits with siblings. The description does not sufficiently equip the agent for correct 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by detailing the expected structure, but it does not. The agent is left guessing what keys to include.
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 merely restates the tool name as 'get_project' and labels it as a Xero connector operation. It does not elaborate on what exactly is retrieved or provide any differentiation from sibling tools like xero_list_projects. The purpose is vaguely clear but not enriched.
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., xero_list_projects for listing all projects). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), which are generic and not specific to this operation. Key behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling, or permissions 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes space on tautology (restating the tool name) and irrelevant routing details. The parameter description is too brief. It could be more concise and 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 one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description should clarify input requirements and expected return. It fails to explain what 'arguments' should contain, leaving a critical gap for 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema description coverage, this adds minimal meaning. The agent is not told what keys or values to include (e.g., a purchase order ID), making it difficult to use correctly.
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 is a 'get_purchase_order' operation, indicating retrieval of a purchase order. However, it does not specify whether it retrieves by ID or other criteria, and fails to distinguish from siblings like xero_list_purchase_orders. The purpose is vague but not misleading.
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., xero_list_purchase_orders, xero_create_purchase_order). There is no information about prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations are present, and the description only notes generic routing (JWT, tenant, company scope). It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (three sentences) but front-loads a redundant restatement of the name. The second sentence on routing is arguably unnecessary for tool selection. It could be more concise by directly stating the tool's function.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention that the tool returns employee data. For a list operation, this omission leaves the agent unsure of the result. The description also lacks any mention of filtering, pagination, or other common list semantics.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which clarifies its format. However, the description does not explain what keys or values are expected within that JSON string. With schema coverage at 0%, this adds minimal value beyond the raw 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?
The description essentially repeats the tool name ('Xero connector operation list_employees_accounting') without stating that it retrieves a list of employees. The purpose must be inferred from the name alone, and the added routing detail does not clarify 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like xero_list_contacts or xero_list_invoices. The description does not distinguish its use case or mention any 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but contains redundant routing information and lacks substantive content. It is front-loaded with the tool name but wastes space on implementation details. Could be more concise while adding useful 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to state the tool's core purpose, provide usage guidance, or explain parameters. The agent cannot determine when or how to use this tool effectively from the description alone.
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 only describes the 'arguments' parameter as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal value beyond the schema type. No details on what valid arguments are or how to structure 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 it is a Xero connector operation for 'list_receipts' but does not explicitly say it lists receipts from Xero. The purpose is implied by the name and the line 'Xero connector operation `list_receipts`', but lacks a clear verb-object statement. Among many xero_list_* siblings, it does not differentiate itself.
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., xero_list_invoices or other xero_list_* tools). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria. The description only provides routing 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 the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, its impact, rate limits, or required permissions. The routing details are not 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the tool name. However, it includes verbose routing details ('Routes through...') that are likely redundant for an agent with context, making it slightly less efficient than ideal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a trial balance report tool and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to guide the agent on how to use the input parameter or what to expect at a high level. The lack of parameter guidance and behavioral info makes it incomplete for effective selection and 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 only parameter, 'arguments', is a JSON string with no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description repeats 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining the required structure, keys, or examples. This provides no additional meaning over the schema itself.
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 is a 'Xero connector operation trial_balance_report', which combined with the tool name suggests it retrieves a trial balance report. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'retrieve', 'generate') and lacks detail on what the tool returns. Among sibling tools like xero_balance_sheet_report and xero_profit_loss_report, the name differentiates, but the description offers no clarification.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description only gives routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope) and does not differentiate this tool from other Xero report tools or state prerequisites.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only identifies the tool as an 'update' operation, implying mutation, but provides no details on side effects, required permissions, error handling, idempotency, or what changes are made. This is insufficient for safe 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 short (three sentences) but includes routing information that may distract from the core purpose. While concise, it lacks structure and fails to prioritize actionable details for the agent.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context: what fields can be updated, whether the project must exist, and what the output contains. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
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 clarifies that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string, but with 0% schema description coverage, it should explain the expected JSON structure (e.g., required fields like projectId). It adds minimal meaning over the schema, offering no examples or field constraints.
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 it updates a project via the Xero connector, using the verb 'update_project' which clearly indicates the action. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like xero_create_project or xero_get_project, and lacks specificity on what aspects of the project 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 xero_create_project or xero_list_projects. Prerequisites, like an existing project ID, are not mentioned. The routing information does not serve as usage guidance.
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. It mentions auth scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is a write, its idempotency, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loads the operation name and routing. However, it sacrifices completeness for 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?
Despite having an output schema and a single parameter, the description lacks essential context about what the tool creates, what data is needed, and how it relates to sibling tools like 'clio_action_plan_submit'.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should detail expected keys or structure, but does not.
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's a connector operation for 'action_plan_create', but does not explain what an action plan is or what creating one entails. It differentiates from siblings like 'clio_action_plan_submit' only by name, not by description.
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 only provides technical routing details without mentioning use cases 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 behavior. It only mentions routing and argument format, omitting side effects, required scope, or idempotency. The agent learns nothing about what submission triggers.
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 not efficiently structured; the purpose is buried after connector routing info. It is concise but lacks front-loading of key intent.
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 having a single parameter and an output schema, the description omits what the tool returns or what the arguments represent. The agent cannot determine the tool's full purpose or expected input structure.
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 merely restates the 'arguments' parameter as a JSON string, repeating the schema. It does not explain expected keys or values, leaving the agent to guess, especially given 0% schema coverage.
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 identifies the tool as 'Clio connector operation action_plan_submit', indicating it submits an action plan. However, it lacks details on what submitting entails and does not differentiate from siblings like clio_action_plan_create.
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., clio_action_plan_create). The description fails to provide context 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?
The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which gives some authentication/scoping context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the folder already exists, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides minimal behavioral insight.
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 short (three sentences) and to the point. It front-loads the tool's identity, then provides routing context, then parameter format. No wasted words, though it could be better structured with bullet points or clearer separation of concerns.
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 a create operation (mutation) and has sibling tools, the description lacks critical context: what a folder is, valid arguments, error handling, return value (output schema exists but not elaborated), and relationship to other Clio tools. The brief description leaves many gaps for an agent to fill.
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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' (type string, default {}). The description says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds that the input should be JSON. However, it does not specify what keys or values are valid, leaving the agent to guess. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it barely does.
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 is a 'create_folder' operation in Clio, which implies creating a folder. However, it does not specify what a folder represents in Clio (e.g., document folder, case folder) or provide any distinguishing details from sibling tools. The purpose is clear at a high level 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 siblings like clio_list_folders or clio_create_bill. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 carries the burden. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose behavioral traits like destructive potential, rate limits, or idempotency. Creation is implied but not explicitly stated as 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, no wasted words, but the routing and param descriptions are generic. It is concise but lacks substance that earns its place.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool actually does in the context of creating a webhook (e.g., required fields, events). For a creation tool with zero param documentation, this is insufficient.
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 only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining expected keys, constraints, or examples. This adds no meaningful value beyond the schema field type.
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 tool name 'create_webhook' clearly indicates it creates a webhook, and the description mentions it's a Clio connector operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete and update by name. However, it lacks specifics on what kind of webhook (e.g., endpoint, 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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like clio_update_webhook or clio_delete_webhook. 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?
The description mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructiveness, required permissions, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, this is a significant gap for a delete operation.
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 includes routing details that may be unnecessary for an AI agent. It front-loads the operation name but does not waste 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 that this is a delete tool with a single parameter and an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what arguments are needed, what a successful deletion looks like, or error conditions.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no specification of what keys are required (e.g., grant ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema itself.
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 identifies the tool as 'delete_grant' but does not explicitly state that it deletes a grant. The purpose is implied by the name but not clarified, leaving ambiguity about what a 'grant' is in the Clio 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clio_create_grant, clio_get_grant, clio_update_grant, or clio_list_grants. The description gives no 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 carries full burden. It mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on failure, or any side effects. Lacks behavioral 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 concise with three sentences and no redundant information. However, it prioritizes technical routing over functional clarity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness for 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?
Given the tool is a 'get' operation with output schema present, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., contact details). It also does not explain prerequisites or authentication beyond the routing hint. Completeness is low.
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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify expected keys or structure. This is insufficient to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's a 'get_contact' operation, which via the name implies retrieving a contact, but does not explicitly say 'retrieves a contact' or describe its purpose. It focuses on routing details rather than functionality. Among many sibling clio_* tools, it does not differentiate itself.
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 clio_list_contacts or clio_create_contact. The description does not provide any contextual usage hints.
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 behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, filtering capabilities, or side effects. The agent gets minimal information beyond the basic operation.
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 includes technical routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that may not be actionable for the agent. It is adequately concise but could be streamlined to focus on tool usage.
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 lists bills and there are many sibling list tools, the description omits important context like what bills are included, filtering options, or output structure. The presence of an output schema is noted but its contents are not described.
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 one parameter 'arguments' with 0% coverage. The description does not explain what arguments are expected or how to format them. The agent cannot infer proper usage 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 clearly states it lists bills ('list_bills') and specifies the routing through an API endpoint. However, among many sibling clio_list_* tools, there is no differentiation, so the agent may not know when to choose this over other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. The description only explains the routing mechanism, not the context or conditions for using the tool.
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 routing through a specific endpoint with JWT/tenant/company scope, offering minimal context. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and contains no redundant phrasing, but the routing information adds bulk without aiding invocation. The structure is acceptable but not well-organized for quick scanning.
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?
Even with an output schema present, the description omits essential context about what communications are, whether filtering is possible, and what the response contains. This incompleteness hinders proper 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain expected keys or structure, leaving the agent to guess.
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 identifies the tool as a connector operation to list communications, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it does not specify what constitutes 'communications' (e.g., emails, messages, notes), nor does it distinguish from sibling list tools like clio_list_activities or clio_list_bills.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparison with other Clio list tools, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations are given. The description mentions routing and authentication scope but omits whether the tool is read-only, has pagination, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more 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 brief (two sentences plus an Args line) and front-loaded with the operation name, but it is overly minimal. 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the return value, how to construct arguments, and use cases. It does not provide enough context for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no details on expected keys or structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.
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 identifies it as a list notes operation but doesn't clarify what 'notes' are in the Clio context or how this tool differs from other clio_list_* siblings. The name provides some clarity, but the description is generic.
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 clio_list_activities or clio_list_documents. No prerequisites or filtering criteria 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?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT and scope but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on error, rate limits, or any side effects. The name implies reading, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose and routing info. It is concise, but could be more informative within the same length by adding context about the return value or typical usage.
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 simplicity of the tool (listing with one opaque parameter), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the scope of listing, any filtering capabilities, or the structure of the output (though an output schema exists). Essential contextual details are missing.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no semantic value beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what arguments are expected or their effect.
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 identifies it as a 'list_payment_links' operation, which clearly indicates it lists payment links. The name and first sentence are sufficient to convey the basic purpose. However, it does not differentiate from similarly named siblings like clio_list_payments, but the distinction is clear from the resource 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions routing and scope, not use cases or contextual 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?
The description mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but fails to disclose core behavior such as what the tool returns, whether it supports filtering/pagination, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, but prioritizes routing details over functional explanation. It is not well-structured for an agent; key information about the task entity is omitted.
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 a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks necessary context about what data is returned and how to use the arguments. It feels incomplete for a functional 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for connector arguments, but no details about expected keys or structure are provided. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.
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 tool lists tasks within Clio, but does not define what constitutes a 'task' in the Clio context. It relies on the name for clarity, and while distinct from siblings like clio_list_activities, it offers no additional 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. There are many sibling clio_list_* tools, but the description does not differentiate usage context or suggest 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; description only mentions routing and scope. It does not disclose read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output contains. Lacks critical behavioral context for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus one line for args), but it omits important details. It is not verbose, but the structure is simple; acceptable for a minimal description.
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 an output schema exists but is not referenced, and the parameter is opaque, the description leaves agents without enough information to correctly invoke the tool. Missing pagination, filtering, and output structure 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'arguments' parameter. However, it merely restates 'JSON string of arguments' without specifying valid keys, formats, or examples. No added 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 this tool lists webhooks, but does not differentiate it from siblings like clio_get_webhook (single webhook) or clio_create_webhook. The verb and resource are specific, but missing 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clio_get_webhook or clio_create_webhook. No context on 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through `/api/tools/invoke` and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not explain side effects, success/failure outcomes, or any constraints. Very limited 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 short but includes redundant routing and platform tool info that does not aid understanding. It could be more concise by removing the platform tool name and routing path, though the overall length is acceptable.
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 having an output schema, the description does not mention it or any return value. The single opaque parameter lacks detail, and no examples or required fields are provided. The tool's complexity is low but the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct 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?
The only parameter is a JSON string `arguments` with no schema description (0% coverage). The description repeats 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying expected keys, types, or structure. The agent receives no guidance on how to populate this parameter.
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 identifies the tool as updating a medical bill via a Clio connector, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like clio_update_medical_record or clio_update_medical_records_detail. The verb and resource are stated, but the lack of specific fields or scope limits 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, prerequisites, or context. The description focuses on routing and authentication rather than 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. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it routes through a specific API path under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying authentication requirements. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error scenarios, or success/failure behavior. 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 short (3 sentences) but contains boilerplate routing info that is not operation-specific. It is concise but sacrifices informativeness, making it only minimally viable.
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 a single opaque parameter, no annotations, and an undisclosed output schema, the description is severely incomplete. The agent lacks essential details to use the tool correctly, such as what fields can be updated, input format, and expected response.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no meaning about expected structure, required fields, or valid values. The agent cannot construct correct input from this.
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 name 'update_medical_records_detail' clearly indicates a mutation operation on medical records detail resources. The description restates this but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like clio_create_medical_records_detail or clio_update_medical_record, relying on the name alone.
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 create, delete, or other update tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through an API endpoint with JWT/tenant/company scope, which is generic and likely shared by all Clio tools. It does not disclose what happens during the update (e.g., idempotency, field mutability, side effects, 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?
The description is brief (two sentences plus args) and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, it could be more informative without being verbose—the routing information is likely redundant for an agent that already knows how API calls work.
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 it is a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not described, the description fails to provide essential context about the update operation, such as which webhook properties can be modified, the effects of the update, or required permissions. The agent is left guessing.
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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with no description (0% coverage). The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which slightly clarifies the type but does not specify what keys or values are expected. For a mutation tool with a single opaquely named parameter, this is insufficient.
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 identifies the tool as 'update_webhook' connector operation, but does not explicitly state that it updates an existing webhook in Clio. The name clarifies the action, but the description lacks specificity. Sibling tools like clio_create_webhook and clio_delete_webhook are differentiated by name only.
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 update_webhook versus create or delete. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The agent receives no help in deciding whether to invoke this tool.
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 'Approve' implying a write/mutation operation, but gives no details on consequences (e.g., whether it triggers notifications, grants access immediately, or if approval is reversible). This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral 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 sentence with no superfluous text, fitting the conciseness ideal. However, it lacks structure—no separate sections for purpose, usage, or parameters. It is borderline under-specified rather 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 (2 required parameters, 0% param docs, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the return value despite an output schema existing. The agent cannot reliably select this tool based solely on the provided 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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for 'workspace_id' and 'request_id'. The tool description adds no parameter explanations, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide or how they relate to pending access requests.
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 'Approve a pending access request' clearly specifies the verb (approve) and resource (pending access request). It is specific enough to distinguish from the sibling tool 'code_workspace_deny_access_request' which handles denial. However, it does not elaborate on the context (e.g., code workspace) which is implied by the 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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like denying or adding collaborators. There is no mention of prerequisites or contextual cues for the AI agent.
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 says 'List', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, required permissions, or limitations such as pagination or filtering 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, which is concise. However, it sacrifices important information that could be added without significant verbosity, making it only marginally acceptable.
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 an output schema, the description should explain inputs and what the output represents. It does not, despite the output schema being present. The description is incomplete for safe and 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters (workspace_id, archived). It does not explain their purpose, format, or how 'archived' affects results, 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 action ('List') and the resource ('Codex runtime threads for a workspace'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like code_workspace_codex_thread_action, though it could be more precise about what 'threads' are.
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 exclusions, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations provided. Description says it applies changes but doesn't disclose destructive behavior, permissions, or reversibility. The name implies mutation, but lacks detail.
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?
One sentence is concise but lacks necessary detail. It could be expanded without being 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?
Output schema exists but description is too brief. Lacks explanation of what 'review-suggested changes' entails and how the tool works. More context needed for proper 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%. Description does not explain workspace_id or run_id beyond their names, leaving ambiguity about their meaning and source.
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 applies review-suggested changes to the workspace. Differentiates from siblings like 'code_workspace_run_review' and 'code_workspace_proposal_apply'.
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 mentioned (e.g., a review must exist).
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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some auth context. However, it does not disclose whether the action modifies code, what the output is, or any side effects. The behavioral disclosure 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 relatively short with an Args section. However, it includes routing boilerplate that may not be essential for an agent. Overall, it is efficient and front-loaded, but could be more concise by omitting implementation details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what format_code does, making it hard for the agent to decide when to invoke it. It lacks information on the tool's effect, return value, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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 labels 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but it does not specify how these parameters affect the formatting operation. The agent receives little meaningful parameter guidance beyond basic naming.
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 'Run the coding domain agent action format_code,' which identifies the specific action but does not explain what formatting entails. The name 'format_code' itself is somewhat descriptive, but the description fails to differentiate it from siblings like coding_explain_code or coding_write_code.
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 when formatting is appropriate or when to use other coding tools. The description lacks any 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?
No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose side effects, authorization needs beyond scope, return behavior, or what the output schema contains. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes a docstring-style Args section. It is concise but lacks clear structure for an agent to efficiently parse core purpose. Routing information may be extraneous.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain the core functionality of reading code—what code, from where, under what conditions. Incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
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 compensates somewhat. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, but overall still vague.
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?
The description states it runs the 'read_code' action but does not clarify what reading code entails. It's a tautology of the tool name and lacks specific verb and resource. Siblings like 'coding_explain_code' and 'coding_search' are not differentiated.
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 prerequisite or context, and sibling tools are not referenced.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher but fails to disclose side effects, potential destructiveness, rate limits, or output format. For a 'run command' 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 relatively short but includes implementational detail about routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) that is unlikely to help the agent. The args are clearly listed, but overall structure could be more focused on actionable info.
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 (dynamic command execution with free-text input) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints, 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It loosely describes `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but does not explain their relationship, input constraints, or expected format, leaving semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it runs a coding domain agent action called `run_command`, providing a verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what kind of commands are possible or how it differs from specific coding tools like `coding_explain_code` or `coding_write_code`, leaving the purpose 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 is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings in the `coding_*` namespace. The description does not mention alternatives or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction.
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 disclosure burden. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scope (authentication context), but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, mutates data, has side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core action followed by scoping and parameter details. The routing sentence is arguably unnecessary but does not detract significantly. Overall, it is 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or success criteria. It lacks details on when to use, error conditions, or examples. For a tool that likely involves running experiments, the description is incomplete and fails to equip the agent with sufficient 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic clarity but remains generic and does not explain expected format, constraints, or examples. The defaults (empty string and '{}') are already in the schema.
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 runs the 'commerce domain agent action ab_test', which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what ab_test accomplishes (e.g., creating or retrieving A/B test results), making the purpose somewhat vague. The technical routing detail adds little to purpose 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 other commerce tools (e.g., commerce_experimentation, commerce_predict). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some behavioral context. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or if it has side effects (e.g., modifying refunds). The transparent scope info is useful 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three lines, but it sacrifices substance. It front-loads the action name but fails to earn its place by omitting key details. It could be expanded slightly to include purpose and usage notes 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?
Despite having an output schema (context signal), the description is incomplete. The tool is a generic action dispatcher, but the action `reconcile_refunds` remains unexplained. The agent lacks understanding of what inputs are needed (e.g., which parameters to fill) and what the output represents. The description does not compensate for the complexity of the underlying action.
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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Given 0% schema description coverage, this help is needed but still sparse. The agent knows the parameters' roles but lacks specifics on expected format or constraints.
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?
The description 'Run the commerce domain agent action `reconcile_refunds`' does not explain what reconciling refunds entails. It only states it runs an action, leaving the agent to guess the purpose. The title is null, and the action name alone is insufficient for clear understanding.
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. The sibling list includes many commerce tools (e.g., commerce_chat, commerce_revenue_by_channel), but the description does not differentiate `reconcile_refunds` from them, nor does it state 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not clarify if the action is read-only, mutates data, or has 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and well-structured with bullet-point args. However, the brevity sacrifices essential information, so it earns a 4 for conciseness but not a 5 due to missing content.
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 a generic router tool with many related siblings, the description lacks context on what the service_catalog action does, what outputs to expect (despite having an output schema), and how it differs from other commerce tools.
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 description adds meaning to the two parameters by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This goes beyond the schema's defaults, but the added detail is minimal.
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?
The description states it runs the 'service_catalog' domain agent action, but it does not explain what that action does. It focuses on routing mechanics rather than the tool's function, leaving the agent unclear on what task it accomplishes.
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 sibling tools like commerce_catalog_sync or other commerce actions. The description does not provide context for choosing 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scoping (JWT, tenant, company), but does not clarify whether this is a read-only lookup, side effects, permissions needed, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences) and front-loaded with the action name. The argument descriptions are separate, making it easy to scan.
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 lookup tool among many commerce siblings, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to select it appropriately. The output schema exists, but the description does not highlight key aspects like typical use cases or relationship to other tools.
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 description adds minimal meaning to the two parameters: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' While schema coverage is 0%, these descriptions are generic and could benefit from examples or constraints (e.g., what kind of inputs are valid).
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?
The description states it runs the 'tariff_lookup' domain agent action, which is essentially a tautology with the tool name. It does not explain what tariff lookup actually does (e.g., checking customs duties, rates, or regulations), leaving the agent to infer the purpose from the name alone.
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. Given the many sibling commerce_* tools, the description should specify scenarios (e.g., 'Use for looking up tariff rates for products') but provides none.
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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, whether it creates or mutates data, or any authorization requirements. The agent cannot infer if this is a read-only analysis or if it triggers asynchronous processes.
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 four sentences covering action, routing, and parameters. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, the parameter descriptions are terse, and the overall clarity suffers from under-specification.
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 having an output schema (so return values are not required), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the competitor analysis does, what inputs it expects meaningfully, or how the results are structured. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool effectively without external knowledge of the underlying action.
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 labels 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, but provides no details on expected content or format. For a competitor analysis tool, the agent needs to know what the message should contain (e.g., competitor names, industry) and what structured inputs are accepted.
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 runs the 'competitor_analysis' action but does not explain what competitor analysis entails. It adds minimal context beyond the name, leaving the agent to infer the purpose. While it identifies the action, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'content_competitor_watchlist'.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when not to use it. The agent has no direction on whether this is for initial analysis, ongoing monitoring, or specific 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?
Without annotations, the description should disclose side effects, safety, and authentication needs. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not state whether the tool is destructive, whether it sends notifications, or what changes occur in the CRM.
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 short (two paragraphs plus an Args list) with no unnecessary repetition. It is reasonably well-structured, though the first paragraph focuses on implementation routing rather than purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or what constitutes a successful booking. The tool's effect on the CRM, the meaning of 'objective', and the expected input format remain unclear, leaving significant gaps.
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%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as a 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but provides no examples, allowed keys, or format details, leaving the agent guessing.
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 runs the 'book_meeting' domain agent action, but does not clarify what booking a meeting entails (e.g., create a calendar event, update a CRM record). The name and sibling 'crm_propose_meeting_slots' suggest it is the actual booking step, but this is not made explicit.
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 'crm_propose_meeting_slots'. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a proposed meeting slot, nor any 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but this is generic. There is no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure.
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 short and front-loaded with the action name. Arg descriptions are separate. While efficient, the routing detail is arguably unnecessary for an agent, slightly reducing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description could rely on it for return values, but it does not mention what the tool returns or how the result relates to the CRM domain. The context of 'plan_sequence' within CRM is not explained, leaving gaps.
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 the description must explain parameters. It provides basic explanations: `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While helpful, it lacks specifics on expected formats or constraints.
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?
The description states 'Run the crm domain agent action `plan_sequence`' but does not clarify what `plan_sequence` does or its purpose. It focuses on routing infrastructure rather than the tool's intended outcome, leaving the agent uncertain about its use.
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 `crm_plan_domain_intelligence` or other CRM tools. The description lacks any context about scenarios, 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 mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not clarify whether this is a read or write operation, what side effects occur (e.g., lead state changes), or any permissions needed. 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 concise: three sentences and an argument list. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the structure could be improved by grouping related 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 existence of an output schema, return values are covered. But the description fails to explain the tool's purpose in the CRM domain. It does not specify what 'strategize lead' achieves, how it affects leads, or when an agent should invoke it over alternatives. The context is incomplete for effective selection.
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 description provides basic explanations for both parameters: `message` as free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds some meaning beyond the schema (which only lists names and types), but lacks examples, expected formats, or constraints.
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?
The description states 'Run the crm domain agent action `strategize_lead`' but does not explain what 'strategize_lead' entails. The purpose is unclear; it only mentions routing and scope, not the specific outcome or functionality. This does not distinguish it from sibling CRM tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other CRM actions like `crm_lead_qualification` or `crm_outbound_messaging`. The description lacks context for appropriate 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it runs an action through a dispatcher, omitting whether verification modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has 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?
The description is short and includes a structured Args list. However, the brevity sacrifices informative content, making it merely efficient rather than comprehensive.
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 an output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the tool's purpose and expected outcomes. It fails to clarify what verification entails, leaving the agent without adequate context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description provides some value but lacks detail on expected input format or constraints.
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?
The description tautologically states 'Run the crm domain agent action verify_lead' without explaining what 'verify_lead' actually does. It provides technical routing info but no semantic purpose, failing to distinguish from sibling CRM tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), which is infrastructure, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose side effects, output nature, or any important behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two short paragraphs and an Args list. It is front-loaded but could be more structured with bullet points.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain what billing_triage accomplishes, its place in workflows, or prerequisites. The core purpose is unclear, making it incomplete for a simple tool.
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 parameter descriptions ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') add basic meaning beyond the schema, which had no descriptions. However, for only two parameters, more detail would improve clarity.
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?
The description states 'Run the customer_success domain agent action `billing_triage`' but does not explain what the action does. It lacks a specific verb and resource, and does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'customer_success_billing_inquiry_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 provide any context about usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 permissions, safety, or side effects. The minimal description fails to add context beyond the 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 a single sentence (9 words) and is concise, but it is too minimal to be effective. It lacks necessary detail, making the conciseness a trade-off with clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to explain the input parameter or usage context, making it minimally adequate but 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for the required 'session_id' parameter (e.g., what it represents or how to obtain it). The 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Collaboration info for a document builder session' indicates the tool retrieves information about collaboration for a session. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'doc_builder_add_collaborator' (which adds collaborators) but remains vague on what specific info is returned.
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., doc_builder_add_collaborator, doc_builder_get_messages). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or whether the tool is read-only.
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 states 'Get', implying a read-only operation. No details about idempotency, rate limits, or side effects are given. The output schema exists but the description does not add 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 a single sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure such as separating parameter info or usage notes. The brevity leaves out important 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 tool has 2 parameters with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should provide more context. It mentions 'message history' but does not clarify the scope, ordering, or filtering behavior. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing parameter descriptions.
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. 'session_id' and 'limit' are not described in the description, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names only. This is a significant 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'message history for a document builder session', distinguishing it from sibling tools like doc_builder_add_collaborator or doc_builder_save. However, it could be more specific about the type of messages (e.g., chat or comments).
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 prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using it. Sibling tools are differentiated by name but not by explicit usage instructions.
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. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies state, or what happens in edge cases (e.g., empty workbook, authentication failures). The routing info does not compensate for this lack of transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loads the purpose, but it includes extraneous routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that are not essential for tool selection. It could be more concise without sacrificing clarity.
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 omits critical context. It does not mention what the tool returns (presumably a list of worksheet names), nor does it specify the Excel workbook scope. An output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent with incomplete information.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type definition. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain expected keys or format for the JSON string.
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 it is an Excel connector operation that lists worksheets, making the purpose clear. The verb 'list' and resource 'worksheets' are explicitly mentioned, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like excel_add_worksheet. However, it could be more specific about what 'worksheets' refers to (e.g., tabs in an Excel workbook).
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 vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., having an open Excel workbook) or context in which listing worksheets is appropriate. The description merely states the operation without usage direction.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, whether it performs reads or writes, or any other 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, consisting of three sentences and a parameter list. It is efficient for a developer, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about what the tool returns, when to use it, and behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations and many siblings, it is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke it.
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 description adds minimal meaning to parameters: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string'. With 0% schema coverage, it partially compensates, but does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples.
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?
The description primarily restates the tool name as 'finance domain agent action' and explains it routes through a dispatcher, but fails to clarify what the anomaly investigation actually does. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like finance_fraud_investigation or finance_anomaly_fraud_case_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention specific scenarios, prerequisites, or cases where other tools 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 provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful, but fails to disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. Key behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences plus parameter list, and it front-loads the key verb 'Run'. However, the parameter list uses a non-standard format (Args: with colon) which could be improved, but overall it is appropriately sized and direct.
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 and many sibling finance tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the action's domain, expected output, or when to use it. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of usage context and behavioral details.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of inputs are expected or how they affect the action, leaving ambiguity. With 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.
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?
The description states it runs a specific domain agent action but does not explain what that action does. The name 'board_dashboard_page' hints at a finance board dashboard, but the description fails to clarify the purpose, leaving the agent unsure of what it accomplishes.
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 alternative finance tools like 'finance_board_pack' or 'finance_chat'. The description does not mention any prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to select correctly.
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 behavior. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher but omits critical traits like whether the action is synchronous, long-running, or idempotent. No side effects or failure modes are described.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the sentence about routing through the dispatcher is implementation detail that could be omitted. Overall efficient but slightly 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?
The tool represents a complex agent action with many unknowns. The description is too sparse given the lack of annotations and the cryptic tool name. It does not cover return values (though output schema exists), behavior, or when to invoke this loop. Incomplete for effective 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only offers minimal parameter explanations: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. These are vague and add little beyond the schema. The description does not provide examples, constraints, or format guidance.
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 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_board_pack_operating_loop' which identifies the verb and resource, but does not explain what the operating loop accomplishes. The name is cryptic and not differentiated from similar siblings like finance_board_pack.
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 lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate scenarios. Sibling tools abound, yet no differentiators 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher, omitting side effects, permissions, or whether the action is read-only or destructive. The actual behavior (creating tasks) is left implicit.
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 (three sentences plus args) but lacks substance; it is concise but not optimally structured for quick understanding. Every sentence is used, but they are not informative enough.
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 (domain agent action wrapper) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the action's purpose, input semantics, or output (despite having an output schema). The routing detail is helpful but insufficient.
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 adds minimal semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is optional JSON, but lacks examples, format details, or clarification of what 'objective' means. The description barely adds value beyond the schema.
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 runs a specific domain agent action, but does not explain the business function, making it only somewhat clear. It relies on the name 'finance_collections_to_crm_tasks' for inference, which is vague without 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, scope), which are not usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, whether the tool creates or modifies data, idempotency, rate limits, or return value structure. Behavioral traits 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 short and includes a structured args section. However, it omits critical information about purpose and behavior, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It is adequately concise 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?
The tool has an output schema, but the description does not explain what kind of results to expect. It lacks details on prerequisites, the objective scope, or how the loop processes inputs. Given the tool's role in a complex domain, the description is insufficiently complete.
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 adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. No examples, constraints, or explanation of how inputs are used. The description adds little value beyond parameter names.
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 runs a finance domain agent action named 'funding_readiness_loop' but does not explain what the loop does or what 'funding readiness' entails. The purpose is vague and does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'finance_funding_readiness_assessment'.
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 sibling 'finance_funding_readiness_assessment' suggests a similar purpose but no differentiation is provided. 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 carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read/write nature, side effects, required permissions, or what the action actually does. The routing details are generic and not specific to this 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?
Description is short and to the point, with a clear first sentence identifying the action and a separate section for arguments. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 the complexity of finance domain actions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the purpose of 'goal_understand' or how it fits into the goal lifecycle. Although an output schema exists, the description lacks context for the agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
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?
Description lists both parameters ('message' as free-text objective, 'inputs' as optional JSON string), adding slight value beyond schema titles. However, schema coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on format, constraints, or examples.
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?
Description states it runs the finance domain agent action 'goal_understand', but fails to explain what 'goal_understand' does. The verb 'run' is generic, and the resource is not defined. Sibling tools like 'finance_goal_plan' and 'finance_goal_execute_wave' imply distinct purposes, but this description does not differentiate.
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 'finance_goal_plan' or 'finance_goal_record_task_result'. No context, prerequisites, or scenarios 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it routes through a dispatcher but does not mention side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or what the action actually does (create? submit?). 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and wastes few words, but lacks a clear front-loaded purpose statement. It is concise but not well structured for quick comprehension.
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 an output schema exists, the description does not help understand what the tool returns. It also does not explain when to use this over the many sibling finance tools. Incomplete for its complexity.
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%, so description must compensate. It adds 'free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string' for inputs, which is minimal. No examples, constraints, or expected format details.
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 runs the 'grant_application_compile' action but does not explain what compiling a grant application means or how it differs from sibling tools like finance_grant_application_completion or finance_grant_application_extraction. The purpose is implied by the name but not clarified.
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 mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to specify whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. The behavioral nature of 'margin' is unclear.
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 and well-structured: action name, routing context, then parameter list. No unnecessary content; it efficiently uses a few lines.
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?
The description does not explain what the tool returns, despite an output schema existing. Critical context such as the meaning of 'human capital cloud margin' is missing, leaving the agent without enough information to decide if this tool is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It labels 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', providing some semantic context beyond the schema. However, it lacks detail on format constraints or typical usage.
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?
The description merely restates the tool name as 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_human_capital_cloud_margin' without explaining what the action does. The purpose is vague; it does not clarify what 'human capital cloud margin' means or what the tool accomplishes.
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 the many sibling finance tools, nor does it mention 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.
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 mentions routing and scopes (JWT, tenant, company), but omits whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, pagination, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, with two sentences and bullet points for arguments. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not indicate what the tool returns (e.g., a list of scenarios). It lacks context about the output structure or behavior when there are no results, making it incomplete for a list operation in a complex domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema names. However, it does not explain how inputs affect the listing or provide examples.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action list_cross_domain_scenarios', which essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what the tool actually does. It fails to explicitly say that it lists scenarios, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like finance_run_cross_domain_scenario.
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 prerequisites, context, or that this tool lists scenarios while finance_run_cross_domain_scenario executes them.
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 mentions routing through the dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful. But it does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects it has. The behavioral traits are insufficiently described.
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 relatively concise with two short paragraphs, but it is not front-loaded with the most critical information. It spends space on routing details that might be implied, and could be more direct about what the action does.
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 a domain agent action with an output schema, the description omits what the action returns or how to interpret results. It also lacks prerequisites or usage examples, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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%, so the description must compensate. It says 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; no examples, constraints, or context are given for either parameter.
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 runs the finance_ma_integration_forensic action, which has a clear verb ('run') and resource (the specific action). However, it does not explain what the action actually does, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. It is somewhat vague but distinguishable from siblings by 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other finance_* tools. The description only says to run the action, without context on appropriate scenarios or alternatives. This is a significant gap given the large sibling list.
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 routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds minimal behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, side effects, rate limits, or any constraints beyond routing. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and uses bullet-point style for args, which is clean and scannable. However, the routing line could be integrated more tightly. Overall, it is appropriately sized for the minimal information provided.
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 (finance domain agent action) and that no annotations or output schema details are in the description, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns or what kinds of objectives/inputs are valid. The output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent without crucial context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds value over the bare schema (which only has titles and defaults), though it remains somewhat generic.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('Run the finance domain agent action finance_mna_pro_forma') without specifying what the action does or what a pro forma is. It provides no verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like finance_ma_integration_forensic or finance_dcf_lbo_spreadsheet.
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 sibling list contains many finance_* actions, but the description offers no context about when this specific M&A pro forma action is appropriate or when to choose a different tool.
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 carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose side effects, data sources, or what the action actually does beyond the routing mechanism. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.
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 relatively short and includes an Args section, but the inclusion of technical routing details ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') is not essential for the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose. The information could be more concise and focused on the tool's functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two optional parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not mention what the tool returns, what kinds of actions it performs, or how it fits into the portfolio monitoring workflow. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string', which adds minimal meaning. It does not specify valid formats, examples, or what types of inputs are accepted, leaving the agent with little guidance beyond parameter names.
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 runs the finance domain agent action for portfolio monitoring, which gives a general purpose. However, it lacks a specific verb and resource (e.g., 'fetch portfolio performance metrics') and does not differentiate from sibling finance tools like finance_risk_monitoring or finance_chat.
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. The description only explains the technical routing, without stating appropriate 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits critical traits such as side effects, rate limits, data access, or output characteristics. Insufficient for an agent to assess behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (3 sentences) and front-loads the action name, routing info, and parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the content is sparse.
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 having an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete for a domain agent tool. It fails to explain the function's purpose, return value, or how it fits among many finance siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand its role.
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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema by labeling 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. Given 0% schema description coverage, this provides basic utility, but it lacks detail on expected format or constraints.
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?
The description merely states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_revenue_leakage,' which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not explain what revenue leakage detection or analysis entails, nor does it distinguish from sibling finance tools like finance_aging or finance_anomaly_fraud_case_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 compared to alternatives. The description lacks context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when to invoke it over other finance 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'runs an action' and 'routes', without explaining side effects, what the action does, or any limitations. Critical information about permissions, idempotency, or output behavior 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with three sentences and a parameter list. It is well-structured but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. Some words could be repurposed for clarity.
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 large number of sibling tools and the absence of annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the output (though an output schema exists), the nature of the board pack, or how the agent action integrates. The AI agent would struggle to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds basic meaning: message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is helpful but minimal; it does not specify expected structure or constraints for the JSON.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_saas_board_pack' which is mostly a tautology. It does not explain what a board pack is or how it differs from sibling tools like finance_board_pack or finance_board_meeting_packet_generation. The purpose is 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. The description only mentions routing through a dispatcher but not the context or prerequisites for invoking this tool. Among many finance tools, no differentiation 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scoping but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. Critical behavioral traits like idempotency, auth requirements beyond scope, or error conditions 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the primary action. It is not verbose and every sentence contributes. However, it could benefit from better sectioning (e.g., separating usage from routing details) which would improve scannability.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description lacks essential context about what 'story discovery' produces, typical use cases, error handling, or integration notes. For a domain agent action, this is under-specified and forces the agent to infer too much.
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 add meaning. It labels 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, but offers no examples, format constraints, or clarity on how they influence the action. This is minimal value beyond parameter names.
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 that the tool runs a finance domain agent action called 'finance_story_discovery', but fails to define what 'story discovery' entails, leaving the purpose somewhat vague. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity compared to sibling tools like finance_chat or finance_forecasting.
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 explains how the tool routes through the platform's dispatcher but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens when the action is invoked. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose (though tautological). No extraneous information. Parameter definitions are clear and concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what the subscription renewal status action actually returns or how to effectively use the parameters. An agent cannot determine what a valid 'message' or 'inputs' should be without additional context. The description is incomplete for a tool that likely has a specific domain purpose.
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% (no descriptions in the schema). The description adds minimal meaning by labeling 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides some context beyond the raw schema but is still vague.
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?
The description restates the tool name as 'Run the finance domain agent action' without explaining what the action does. The name hints at subscription renewal status, but the description provides no specific verb or resource, and does not distinguish it from the sibling tool 'customer_success_finance_subscription_renewal_status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the customer success variant. No context on required 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, side effects, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the 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 relatively short but includes a tautological first sentence. It is reasonably structured with an args list, but could be more concise by removing redundancy and focusing on value-add 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's apparent complexity (subscription renewal sweep), the description lacks information on return values (even though an output schema exists), behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings. It is incomplete for an agent to understand the full implications of using 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 must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string', but provides no details on expected structure, constraints, or examples. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool with proper parameters.
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 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_subscription_renewal_sweep', which is somewhat tautological as it repeats the tool name. It adds routing scope details but does not explicitly state what the action does (e.g., processing subscription renewals). The name itself gives some purpose, but the description lacks clarity beyond that.
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 'customer_success_finance_subscription_renewal_sweep' or 'finance_subscription_renewal_status'. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and authentication scope, but does not indicate whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur.
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, consisting of three sentences plus a bulleted args list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a generic action runner with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, but the description fails to explain the action's purpose, expected inputs, or return value. It is incomplete given the complexity and number of sibling tools.
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 description provides minimal parameter info: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks detail on valid inputs, constraints, or examples. Given schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but remains thin.
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?
The description states 'Run the finance domain agent action xero_consolidation', which is nearly tautological. It does not explain what 'consolidation' entails or what the tool accomplishes, leaving its purpose vague and indistinguishable from many sibling xero tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 the many sibling tools like finance_xero_ap_intake_to_pay or xero_create_invoice. The agent lacks criteria for appropriate 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 mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher and authentication scope, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what permissions are needed. The agent gets little insight into the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and uses a clear argument list. However, the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. Overall, it is acceptably 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns. For a tool that likely retrieves organizational data, the description omits any indication of the output structure or typical use cases, leaving gaps in the agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides some meaning, but lacks details on how to properly use these parameters or what values are expected.
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?
The description merely states 'Run the finance domain agent action xero_org_overview' and does not explain what the action does. It fails to specify that it retrieves an overview of a Xero organization, leaving the agent to infer purpose from the tool name alone. This is nearly a tautology.
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 the many other Xero tools (e.g., xero_get_organisation, xero_executive_summary_report). The description lacks context for selecting this tool 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions routing info but does not disclose side effects, read-only nature, error handling, or argument behavior. Essential behavioral traits 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 short but includes redundant info (duplication of name and platform tool). It could be more concise and better structured to highlight key points.
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 list tool, the output schema exists but is not leveraged. The description omits critical context like pagination, filtering, or typical argument structure. Incomplete to guide effective 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no details on valid keys, structure, or defaults. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent unable to correctly invoke the tool.
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 it lists invoices from Freshbooks, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from other Freshbooks list tools (e.g., freshbooks_list_clients) or from similar invoice-listing tools in sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 freshbooks_list_payments or quickbooks_list_invoices. No context provided for selecting this tool.
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 only indicates a read operation ('Get') but provides no disclosure about authentication, error behavior, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too brief to be fully useful.
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 an output schema, the description omits mention of the return value, error handling, or relationship to other AutoCompany tools. This is insufficient 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?
The single parameter task_id has no description in the schema or the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameter, leaving the agent to guess its format or source.
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 'AutoCompany task detail'. It implies retrieval of a single task, distinguishing it from list_aoc_tasks which lists tasks. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes 'detail'.
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 like list_aoc_tasks or get_aoc_run. The agent must infer usage from context 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Get a single AutoCompany tick.' It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, or error handling for invalid tick_id.
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), but it sacrifices completeness. It is front-loaded but lacks structure; every word is earned, but there is no elaboration.
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 an output schema and a single required parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a tick is, how to obtain tick_id, or what the response contains, nor does it differentiate from 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%, and the description does not mention the required tick_id parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the schema's type and title, leaving the agent without guidance on how to specify the tick.
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 'a single AutoCompany tick', distinguishing it from list_aoc_ticks. However, it does not define what an AutoCompany tick is, which may cause ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_aoc_tick, get_aoc_decision, or list_aoc_ticks. There is no mention of 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive potential, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The only behavioral detail is routing through an API endpoint, which is infrastructure-level and not action-relevant.
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 (few sentences) but not front-loaded with essential information. It begins with routing details rather than a clear purpose statement. While short, it could be restructured to prioritize action and usage 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, zero required), the description should still explain what the tool accomplishes in GitHub (e.g., 'Creates a new deployment environment in a repository'). The output schema exists but doesn't negate the need for contextual completeness. The agent lacks information about preconditions, effect, and how the arguments parameter should be constructed.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's string type. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain expected keys, format, or examples, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance to construct valid input.
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 'create_environment' as a GitHub connector operation, clearly indicating the verb and resource. However, it does not elaborate on what creating an environment means in GitHub context (e.g., deployment environments). The name alone distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_list_environments, but the description adds no additional 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_list_environments or github_create_deployment_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when it is appropriate to invoke this tool.
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 only mentions routing and authentication details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose the behavioral impact of the tool, such as whether it creates a new release, modifies existing resources, or requires specific permissions. No annotations are provided.
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 and front-loaded with the operation name, making it easy to scan. However, it sacrifices necessary detail 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?
The description is severely incomplete. Given the tool's complexity (creating a GitHub release typically requires multiple fields), the description fails to provide enough context for correct invocation. The output schema exists but is not referenced, and the parameter semantics are insufficient.
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 adds minimal semantics: it notes the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not explain the internal structure of that JSON string or what fields (e.g., tag_name, body) are expected.
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 is a 'Github connector operation create_release', indicating the purpose is to create a GitHub release. However, it lacks detail on what a release entails (e.g., tagging, release notes) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like github_create_repository or github_update_release.
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 prerequisites, typical use cases, or context that would help an agent decide when creating a release 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?
No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavior. It only mentions routing and authentication scopes (JWT, tenant, company). It does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating a workflow run), required permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
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 (3 sentences) but wastes the first sentence restating the name. The routing information is placed before the purpose. It could be better structured to front-load the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and a rich sibling set, the description fails to provide enough context. It does not mention output, success conditions, errors, or when to use this over similar tools. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must add meaning. It explains that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the operation, but does not specify expected keys, format, or examples. This is minimal value beyond the schema.
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 tool dispatches a workflow for GitHub, but it does not clarify what dispatching entails (triggering a run) or distinguish it from similar siblings like github_trigger_workflow. The purpose is vague and relies on the tool name itself.
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 context on prerequisites, expected workflow state, or comparison with github_trigger_workflow. The description only provides routing details.
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 mentions routing and scope, but does not cover read-only nature, error behavior, rate limits, or what happens if the issue is not found.
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 lines) and front-loaded with the operation name. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices meaningful content for brevity, 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?
Despite having an output schema (which is not described), the description fails to mention essential context like required identifiers (repo, issue number) or how the arguments parameter maps to the actual GitHub API. The tool appears to need more detail for correct 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?
The only parameter is 'arguments' with 0% schema description coverage. The description states it's a JSON string of arguments but does not specify what keys (e.g., owner, repo, issue_number) are required or optional, leaving the agent to guess the structure.
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 name 'get_issue' clearly indicates retrieving an issue, but the description only repeats the operation name and adds generic routing info. It does not explicitly state that it retrieves a specific GitHub issue or what it returns.
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 alternative GitHub tools like 'github_list_issues' or 'github_get_pull_request'. The description lacks any usage context or differentiation.
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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, pagination, or any details about side effects or response behavior. The only behavioral info is the routing path, which 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 two sentences long, but the first sentence merely restates the tool name and the second provides routing details. It is concise but could be restructured to front-load actionable 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 lack of annotations, incomplete parameter documentation, and missing output description (despite an output schema existing), the description leaves significant gaps. An agent cannot determine what alerts are returned, how to filter, or how to interpret results.
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 a single 'arguments' parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify expected keys, format, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond the schema field name.
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 it is a Github connector operation to list code scanning alerts, which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_list_secret_scanning_alerts or provide context on what code scanning alerts are. The purpose is clear but lacks functional 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 versus alternatives (e.g., list_secret_scanning_alerts, list_dependabot_alerts). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support for tool 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and argument format but lacks details on output, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The tool's safety profile (read vs write) is not indicated.
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 (3 sentences) but poorly structured. The first sentence is redundant, the second about routing is irrelevant for tool selection, and the third on arguments is minimal. Could be more front-loaded with key functional info.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks context on what Dependabot alerts are, how to scope the list (e.g., per repository), or any filtering capabilities. The single-parameter tool is underspecified 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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter info beyond 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' No details on required fields like owner, repo, or state, leaving the agent without guidance on constructing valid input.
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 lists Dependabot alerts, specifying verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from siblings like github_list_code_scanning_alerts or github_list_secret_scanning_alerts, and the first sentence is a tautological restatement of the 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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for listing Dependabot alerts.
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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing and authentication context (JWT, tenant, company scope), which is helpful, but omits whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or what data it returns. Essential behavioral traits like idempotency or rate limits 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 short but contains redundancy (repeating the name in two ways). The routing details are useful but could be condensed. Overall, it is acceptably brief but not optimally 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (list of review comments). It lacks details on filtering, pagination, or how to structure arguments. The routing context is present but insufficient for a complete understanding of 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description merely states it is a JSON string of arguments without specifying expected fields like owner, repo, pull_number, or pagination. This adds negligible meaning 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 identifies the tool as listing pull request review comments from GitHub, clearly stating the operation and platform tool names. It distinguishes itself from sibling GitHub tools like github_list_pull_request_files or github_list_reviews by specifying 'review comments', though it does not explicitly state the scope (e.g., which pull request).
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. No context is provided about scenarios that call for listing review comments, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The description only describes the routing mechanism.
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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or idempotency. The routing detail does not compensate for absence of 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 short with three sentences, but the first sentence redundantly restates the tool name. The second sentence about routing is not essential. It is concise but includes filler.
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 having an output schema, the description does not cover return values or what information the user needs to provide (e.g., check_run_id). For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments, without explaining what specific fields are expected. This provides minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 is a GitHub connector operation for updating a check run, which gives a clear verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about what updating a check run entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_create_check_run or github_list_check_runs.
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 prerequisites or exclusions. The description focuses on technical invocation details rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) which are internal. It does not disclose whether the action is read-only, modifies state, or has any side effects. The behavioral impact is unclear.
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 reasonably short but includes implementation details (dispatcher routing under JWT, tenant, company) that are not directly helpful for an AI agent. The args section is clear. Some pruning could improve 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?
The tool has no required parameters and no annotation. Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits what the action plans or produces. It lacks sufficient information for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool effectively.
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 description adds meaningful context to both parameters beyond the schema: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. The schema itself has 0% description coverage, so this explanation is valuable.
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?
The description essentially restates the tool name ('Run the gtm domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`') without explaining what the action actually does. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like crm_plan_domain_intelligence or commerce_plan_domain_intelligence.
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. the many other domain-specific plan_domain_intelligence tools. No prerequisites, context, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive actions, multi-step process, or side effects of offboarding (e.g., removing access).
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?
Description is relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it repeats 'action' and could be more concise without losing clarity.
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 an offboarding loop (likely multi-step and destructive), the description lacks contextual details such as prerequisites, return values, or sequence of actions. Output schema may partially compensate, but description alone is insufficient.
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%, forcing description to compensate. Description adds minimal meaning: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON. Lacks specifics like expected structure or examples.
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 runs the 'employee_offboarding_loop' action, indicating its purpose is offboarding, but it is vague about what the loop entails and how it differs from sibling tool 'hr_offboard'.
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 hr_offboard. Only mentions scope (JWT, tenant, company), which is not usage guidance.
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 convey behavioral traits. It says 'List' implying read-only, but does not disclose whether it is destructive, pagination behavior, or response format. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence). While it avoids verbosity, it lacks structure and front-loading of critical information. It is minimally 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 two parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what applications are returned, valid filter values, or any other context needed for correct 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 mention the parameters (job_id, status) at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema. The description fails to 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 'List Greenhouse applications' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Greenhouse applications'. It is specific about the domain (Greenhouse) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hr_live_recruiting_jobs' which list jobs, but lacks detail on scope (e.g., all applications vs filtered).
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. No mention of filtering by job_id or status, nor any indication of prerequisites or context. The description provides no 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is helpful, but it does not indicate whether the action is read-only, what side effects exist, or how errors are handled. The generic 'lookup' action could be mutable, but this is unclear.
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 short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. It quickly conveys the action and parameters. However, it could be slightly more informative without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the generic nature of the tool and the lack of clarity on what 'lookup' means for HR makes the description incomplete for an agent to use effectively. It is adequate for a simple action runner but missing HR-specific context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, these descriptions remain very generic and do not constrain the possible values or purposes, leaving ambiguity.
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?
The description states 'Run the hr domain agent action `lookup`', which is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what kind of lookup (e.g., employee, case, or policy) or differentiate from sibling HR tools like hr_live_leave_balance or hr_cases_pulse_loop. The purpose is vague and fails to convey the specific 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the parameters but lacks context on prerequisites, when-not to use, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent has no basis to choose hr_lookup over other HR actions.
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 carries full burden. It mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some context, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., mutating data), rate limits, or operational constraints.
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 and a brief args list. It frontloads the purpose and includes routing info efficiently. However, the args list is not optimally formatted 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 existence of sibling tools with similar names (intuit_controller_action, intuit_controller_snapshot), the description should explain what 'controller_review' uniquely does. It does not, leaving the agent unsure of its specific value. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding basic meaning. However, it lacks examples, constraints, or format details needed for correct usage.
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?
The description states 'Run the intuit domain agent action `controller_review`' but does not clarify what the controller_review action actually does. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like intuit_controller_action or intuit_controller_snapshot, leaving the purpose 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision-making 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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose what the action does, side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Very minimal behavioral insight.
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 (3 sentences) but includes a somewhat extraneous sentence about routing. It is adequately sized but could be more front-loaded and trimmed.
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 having an output schema (not mentioned), the description lacks details on what the tool returns, side effects, or how it differs from many it_ops siblings. Not enough for an agent to confidently select and use it.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: message is 'free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This helps an agent understand parameter roles beyond just names and types.
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?
The description states 'Run the it_ops domain agent action autonomous_delivery_loop', which is essentially a tautology repeating the tool name. It does not explain what the action does, and there are many it_ops sibling tools with no 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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose what the action does, whether it is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. For a tool that likely triggers an incident response process, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences plus parameter descriptions. It efficiently states the action and the routing context. However, the lack of purpose clarity reduces its overall 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 tool's complexity (it invokes an incident response action) and the presence of an output schema, the description still fails to explain what the action accomplishes. The agent cannot infer the tool's real-world effect, making it incomplete for proper selection.
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 the description must compensate. It defines 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema (which has only titles and defaults), but the explanations are minimal and do not specify format or constraints.
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?
The description states the tool 'runs the it_ops domain agent action incident_response' but does not explain what that action actually does. The verb 'run' is generic, and there is no information about the purpose or outcome of incident response. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like it_ops_service_desk or it_ops_analysis_review.
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. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, and no comparison to other it_ops tools. It only describes the routing mechanism, not 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 provides minimal behavioral context: it mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or what the action actually does. The behavioral impact beyond authentication 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with two sentences plus a bullet-like arguments list. The first sentence is somewhat tautological but overall efficient. 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 complexity (no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists), the description lacks crucial details: what the action does, return value, use cases, or when to avoid it. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds basic meanings: message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides marginal value but does not explain expected formats or constraints. For a low-coverage scenario, it partially compensates.
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?
The description only states 'Run the it_ops domain agent action inventory_cloud' with no specific verb or resource. It does not clarify what the action does or how it differs from sibling tools like it_ops_cloud_ops or it_ops_analyze_cost.
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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Among numerous sibling tools, the agent has no basis to select this one.
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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, returns data, or any side effects. The term 'passthrough' is ambiguous and provides no behavioral insight.
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 underspecified. It lacks structure and important information, 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what data is returned. Given the tool has no parameters, the description should at least state what 'Live Notion data' entails. It is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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?
Input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With 0 parameters, the description need not add param info; baseline is 4.
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 'Live Notion data passthrough for the IT-Ops workspace' suggests it retrieves live Notion data, but the verb 'passthrough' is vague and doesn't specify the action (e.g., 'get', 'list', 'query'). It distinguishes from general Notion tools by specifying the IT-Ops workspace, but the purpose is not clearly 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 other Notion tools or other IT-Ops live tools. The description does not provide any 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 convey behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through the dispatcher under specific scopes, but it does not disclose whether the action reads or modifies resources, has side effects, or requires special permissions. For a recommendation tool, the lack of read-only status is a gap.
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 (two sentences plus args list) and front-loaded with the action name. However, it is under-specified, lacking detail that would justify its brevity. It could be more efficient by including key behavioral or usage info without adding 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits what kind of architecture is recommended, expected input context, examples of objectives, or how results are presented. This leaves the agent underinformed for a complex domain action.
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 describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, which adds basic meaning. However, it does not explain valid formats for inputs, expected structure, or constraints, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 runs the 'recommend_architecture' action, indicating it provides architecture recommendations. However, it lacks specificity on what the recommendation entails (e.g., cloud architecture, software architecture) and does not distinguish it from sibling it_ops tools like 'it_ops_analysis_review' or 'it_ops_design_review'.
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 why to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not clarify prerequisites, ideal use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The mention of JWT/tenant/company scope is authorization context, not usage guidance.
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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions authentication and routing but not side effects, safety, or what happens when the action is executed (e.g., reads/writes, destructive potential). Very limited 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and well-structured with an Args section. No fluff or extraneous sentences. However, it could include more useful information 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?
The tool likely performs a complex software engineering loop, but the description does not explain its purpose, output, or expected behavior. Output schema exists but is not described. The description fails to provide a complete picture for safe and effective 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies message as free-text objective and inputs as optional JSON string, but does not add meaningful constraints, format expectations, or examples. Only minimal context beyond schema titles.
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 tool runs a specific domain agent action (software_engineering_loop), but does not explain what the loop does or how it differs from siblings like it_ops_autocompany_software_engineering_loop or other software engineering tools. The purpose is clear at a high level 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions routing through a dispatcher and authentication scope, with no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context. Among many sibling tools, no differentiation 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), which provides some context, but fails to indicate whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what happens in edge cases. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but behavior is still 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 short (3 sentences) and well-structured, but it omits crucial information. It is not overly verbose, but conciseness should not come at the expense of completeness. A sentence explaining the purpose would improve it without increasing length much.
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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it is still incomplete. It lacks clarity on purpose, usage guidance, and parameter semantics. For a tool with a single parameter and a clear output, more context is needed for effective 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described merely as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds little beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what keys or values are expected inside the JSON string, leaving the agent to guess.
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's a Jira connector operation for 'default_project_key', which indicates it returns a default project key. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like jira_get_project or jira_default_board_id, and lacks a clear statement of what the tool returns or why it is 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to avoid it, leaving the agent without decision 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?
The description mentions routing and scope but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe error handling or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, the description should provide more 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 concise at three sentences, but the first sentence is a restatement of the tool name, and the routing information may not be the highest priority for an AI agent. The structure could better front-load the tool's purpose.
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?
The description lacks completeness for a single-parameter tool with no schema descriptions. It does not explain what values the 'arguments' JSON should contain. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but input semantics are insufficient.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no details are given on expected keys (e.g., 'issueKey' or 'fields') or format. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate meaningfully.
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 identifies the tool as a Jira connector operation for 'get_issue', implying retrieval of a Jira issue. However, it does not clarify what data is returned or how it differs from sibling tools like 'jira_search_issues' or 'jira_get_project'. The purpose is implied but not explicitly defined.
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 'jira_search_issues' or 'jira_get_sprint_issues'. There is no mention of 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) which are infrastructure, not behavioral traits like read-only, permissions, or whether results are paginated. 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 short (3 sentences) but includes redundant phrasing ('Jira connector operation') and an infrastructure detail that may not be helpful. It is acceptable in length but could be more focused and front-loaded with essential 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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify the input argument structure or the tool's core function beyond the name. For a list tool with a complex JSON input, this is incomplete.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This is generic and adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fails to explain what keys or values the JSON should contain.
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 it is the 'list_automation_rules' operation for Jira, clearly indicating the action (list) and resource (automation rules). However, it does not specify scope or differentiate from sibling Jira tools like jira_list_projects, but the name is sufficiently distinct.
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 mention prerequisites, when not to use, or provide context among the many sibling Jira tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing through `/api/tools/invoke` with JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a minor disclosure. However, it does not describe what the operation does (e.g., creates a worklog, updates time spent), permissions required, idempotency, or side effects. The behavioral traits are insufficient for safe 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 short (3 sentences), which is concise. However, the first sentence is tautological, repeating the name. The second sentence contains routing info that may not be relevant for tool selection. The structure front-loads low-value information and lacks clear, actionable guidance.
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 that this is a Jira time-logging tool with an output schema (present but not detailed), the description lacks key information: what the tool returns, what arguments are required inside the JSON string, and how it relates to other Jira tools. Compared to siblings with more explicit descriptions, this is 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for the single `arguments` parameter. The description says 'JSON string of arguments' but does not specify the expected structure (e.g., issue key, time spent, comment). This adds minimal value beyond the schema and leaves the agent guessing about valid inputs.
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 is a Jira connector operation `log_work`, which is slightly vague. It does not explicitly say 'Log time/work on a Jira issue' in plain language. The name is somewhat descriptive but the description adds little clarity beyond the name itself. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like jira_add_comment or jira_create_issue.
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. No context about prerequisites (e.g., need a Jira issue key), no exclusions, and no mention of related tools. The description only provides routing details, which are not helpful for usage decisions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) which are generic. It does not explain side effects (e.g., issues are moved, sprint becomes active) or requirements (permissions, state 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 very short, but not particularly informative. It is concise but at the expense of providing meaningful guidance. The structure is straightforward but does not earn its place with valuable content.
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 starting a sprint (requires inputs like sprint ID, likely affecting issues and dates), the description is incomplete. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of input specification. Siblings like jira_create_sprint and jira_add_to_sprint create confusion without clear differentiation.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no explanation of its structure. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' The agent cannot determine what fields are required (e.g., sprint ID, name, dates).
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 mentions it's a Jira operation to start a sprint, but the purpose is vague. The exact function (start a sprint) is implied but not explicitly stated with clear verb-resource phrasing. It does not differentiate from siblings like jira_create_sprint or jira_close_sprint.
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 (e.g., sprint must exist, not already started) or when not to use it. The description provides no 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint, but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or requires specific permissions. No behavioral traits beyond basic routing are communicated.
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 (3 sentences) but includes routing information that may be standard across tools. It is not verbose, but the functional description is minimal and not front-loaded with the most critical 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify what is returned, nor does it address required arguments, error scenarios, or the overall effect of transitioning an issue. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining what keys or values are expected (e.g., issue ID, transition ID, fields). It fails to 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it's a 'transition issue' operation, which implies changing issue status, but it lacks specificity and does not distinguish from siblings like jira_bulk_transition, jira_list_transitions, etc. The purpose is vaguely clear but could be more explicit.
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 jira_bulk_transition or jira_update_issue. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and JWT/tenant/company scope, which hints at authentication requirements but does not disclose whether the tool mutates data, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The behavior beyond routing 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences for the main purpose and two lines for parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters). Adequately efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has an output schema (per context signals), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description is very minimal; it does not provide enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool (e.g., typical use cases, data involved, expected outcome). The tool acts as a wrapper, but 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%, and the description adds minimal semantic value: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This only restates the types (string, string) without explaining what kind of objective or format of inputs is expected. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.
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 name 'legal_cookie_audit' and description 'Run the legal domain agent action cookie_audit' indicate it performs a cookie audit in the legal domain. However, it does not clarify what a 'cookie audit' entails (e.g., scanning for compliance, reporting issues) or how it differs from other legal tools like 'legal_compliance_monitoring' or 'legal_privacy_incident_response_loop'. The purpose is somewhat 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions routing through dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying it requires authentication and is scoped, but does not state when to choose this over sibling tools or any 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only discloses routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not state whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. Behavioral traits are largely opaque.
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 short and front-loaded with the action name, with a clear args list. However, it is too concise to convey essential information, sacrificing content for 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?
Despite having an output schema and simple parameters, the description fails to explain what the action accomplishes. In a large set of sibling tools, this incompleteness hinders correct tool selection and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic parameter meanings ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string'), adding some value over the raw schema, but lacks format details or examples.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action horizon_subscribe' but does not explain what horizon_subscribe actually does. It mentions routing details but lacks a clear verb-resource purpose, making it difficult to distinguish from sibling tools like legal_horizon_digest or legal_horizon_scan.
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 conditions, exclusions, or contextual cues to help an agent decide if horizon_subscribe 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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher but fails to describe side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, or what happens during execution. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core action. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity. The structure is efficient but could include more detail 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's complexity as a domain-agent action wrapper, the description omits key context: what ip_docket_sync does, what side effects occur, and what prerequisites are needed. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of behavioral and usage guidance.
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 adds minimal meaning: 'message' is 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'Optional JSON string'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate more thoroughly. It clarifies the parameters' roles but leaves much ambiguity about expected format and constraints.
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 'Run the legal domain agent action `ip_docket_sync`', which identifies the resource but does not explain what ip_docket_sync accomplishes. It is clearer than a pure tautology but still vague compared to sibling tools that specify actions like 'check' or 'search'.
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 legal_ip_deadline_check or legal_tm_clearance_search. There is no 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it has, or what the privilege_log_generate action actually does.
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 with no fluff, but the first sentence is tautological and the routing info is not front-loaded. The structure is mediocre.
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 having an output schema and simple parameters, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain what a privilege log is, when generating one is appropriate, or how results are returned. The tool's domain purpose is missing.
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 description explains that message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding basic semantics beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). This is minimal but adequate.
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?
The description states 'Run the legal domain agent action privilege_log_generate' which is a tautology, restating the tool name without explaining what generating a privilege log actually does. It does not distinguish this tool from other legal domain tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternative legal tools like legal_document_drafting or legal_contract_review. The description lacks any usage 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'List', providing no details about ordering, filtering defaults, side effects, or pagination. Output schema exists but description adds no 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 extremely concise (one sentence) but at the cost of missing crucial information. It is not verbose, but under-specification reduces clarity.
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?
While the tool has an output schema, the description lacks parameter context, usage guidance, and behavioral details. For a simple list tool it is minimally complete but inadequate for informed selection.
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 either parameter ('status', 'limit'). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare field names and 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?
Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'AutoCompany cognitive-loop runs', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_aoc_tasks or list_aoc_ticks. However, it assumes familiarity with 'cognitive-loop run' without further explanation.
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_aoc_tasks or list_aoc_decisions. No context about typical use cases 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 must compensate. It discloses tenant scoping ('defaults to authed tenant') but omits pagination behavior, ordering, or field selection. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but the description is still minimal.
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 completeness. It could add more detail 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 list tool, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, result ordering, or the default limit (20). Even with an output schema, the agent lacks context on how results are returned or filtered.
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 the 'tenant_id' and 'limit' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema, leaving the agent to infer from parameter 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 clearly states it lists CRM tasks and mentions it defaults to the authed tenant. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_crm_task' or 'list_crm_deals', limiting 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 like 'list_crm_deals' or 'list_crm_contacts'. The mention of 'defaults to authed tenant' hints at context but lacks explicit when/when-not 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It omits details about pagination, ordering, filtering, rate limits, authentication, or what happens when no entries exist. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.
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 concise (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks necessary informative content to guide the agent, making it insufficiently structured for practical use.
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 (one optional parameter, no required) and presence of an output schema, a minimal description should still explain the return format or behavior. The current description does not provide enough context for the agent to understand the tool's output or invocation boundaries.
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 mention the 'limit' parameter or its effect (default 50). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, which 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 'List structured memory entries' uses a specific verb and resource, differentiating from sibling tools like memory_list_events, memory_list_identity, and memory_list_skills. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a 'structured memory entry,' slightly reducing 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 statements about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_list_events or memory_query) are provided. There is no mention of contexts, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 only mentions routing infrastructure but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has any side effects. It also omits error handling, permissions, or response details. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but wastes space on routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that are implementation-specific and not helpful for usage. It is structured but not concise in a value-adding way.
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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description should explain what the tool downloads, required arguments, and expected return. It is incomplete, leaving the agent without enough 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It states that 'arguments' is a JSON string but does not specify what keys or values are expected (e.g., file ID, path, format). This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema itself.
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 name 'download_file' suggests downloading a file from Microsoft services, and the description mentions 'Microsoft connector operation'. However, it does not specify which Microsoft service (OneDrive, SharePoint, etc.), what kind of files, or how it differs from siblings like microsoft_upload_file. Purpose is vaguely stated but not fully clarified.
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., microsoft_upload_file, microsoft_update_file). No prerequisites or context for usage are provided, such as needing a file ID or path.
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 includes routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens upon invocation, rate limits, or how chat messages are scoped (e.g., by chat ID). This is insufficient for safe usage.
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 relatively short but includes boilerplate about routing and a suboptimal structure that buries the purpose in a parenthetical. It could be more concise by removing internal details and focusing on usage.
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 (1 parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description still fails to provide essential context such as what constitutes a chat message, how to specify a chat, or the scope of results. The agent lacks 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but no structure or example is provided. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by listing expected fields (e.g., chat ID, filters), but it does not.
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 identifies the tool as a Microsoft connector operation to list chat messages, but fails to specify the context (e.g., Teams, Graph API) or how it differs from siblings like microsoft_list_channel_messages or microsoft_list_chats. The verb and resource are clear, but the purpose is ambiguous without 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 such as microsoft_list_channel_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, required parameters, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess when this 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?
The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not explain the actual behavior of listing chats, such as side effects, permissions, or what data is returned. With no annotations, the description fails to adequately disclose 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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the tool name and routing info. However, it lacks essential details, so conciseness comes 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 the complexity of a list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It does not describe return values, expected input structure, or usage scoping, making it 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, but no details are given about its expected structure or fields. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 identifies it as a Microsoft connector operation 'list_chats', which implies listing chat conversations. However, it does not specify what type of chats (e.g., Teams chats vs general Graph chats) or any additional context, making it 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 is provided on when to use this tool vs siblings like microsoft_list_chat_messages or microsoft_list_team_channels. There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as overwrite behavior, file size limits, required permissions, or success/failure outcomes. For a mutation operation like upload, this 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, but the content does not earn its place due to lack of actionable details. The routing information is useful but the overall contribution is limited.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a file upload operation and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain at least what the arguments JSON should contain and any constraints. It is incomplete and leaves the agent with insufficient information.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for the connector operation, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to detail expected keys, mandatory fields, or examples, providing little help for correct invocation.
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 is a Microsoft connector operation for upload_file, which implies file upload, but does not specify the target location (e.g., OneDrive, SharePoint) or differentiate from siblings like microsoft_update_file. The purpose is clear at a high level 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or contexts where this tool is appropriate or preferred over other file-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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive or benign.
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, but conciseness without substance is not helpful. The first sentence names the tool, the second provides routing info which may be superfluous. Every sentence is simple, but the lack of detail makes it less 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 tool has a single parameter with no schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description should explain what the tool does, its return value, and potential constraints. It fails to provide this context, making it incomplete for an agent to use 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide details on expected keys or structure, but it does not.
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 names the operation 'change_column_value' and identifies it as a Monday connector operation, providing a verb and resource. However, it lacks details on what context (e.g., which item or board) and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'monday_update_item' or 'monday_create_item'.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 carries the full burden. It mentions routing through an API endpoint under JWT/tenant/company scope, giving some auth context, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, has rate limits, or any other 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?
The description is relatively short (three lines), but includes implementation details like the routing endpoint that are not directly useful for an agent. It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's purpose and parameter expectations.
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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks details on filtering, pagination, or what contacts are returned. For a list tool, this is insufficient for an agent to understand full behavior.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments, which adds minimal meaning. It does not specify valid keys or structure within the JSON, leaving the agent to infer from the connector documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it lists contacts, which matches the name, but it provides no differentiation from similar tools like clio_list_contacts or xero_list_contacts. It's clear but minimal, merely restating the tool's name and its nature as a connector 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other list_contacts tools. Lacks context on prerequisites, scoping, 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?
The description provides some behavioral info (routes through /api/tools/invoke with JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or its effect on data. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or result characteristics. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and the description falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and to the point, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points for parameters). It front-loads the purpose. However, the minimalism reduces its helpfulness; a bit more detail would not hurt 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 as a generic connector operation and the presence of an output schema (not detailed in description), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments, what the output contains, or any edge cases. For a tool among many payment listers, 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?
The input schema has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is minimal and does not specify expected keys or format. The schema does not describe the parameter, so the description should compensate but does so inadequately.
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 lists payments for MYOB, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of payments (e.g., customer payments, vendor payments) or differentiate from similar list tools like 'billcom_list_payments' or 'quickbooks_list_payments'. The purpose is clear but minimal.
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 alternative list_payments tools from other systems. No context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or constraints. The description only mentions routing and scope, not 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?
Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether archiving is reversible, affects children, or requires specific permissions. Only the verb 'archive' hints at the action, but no details on 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 includes unnecessary routing information (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke') that is not helpful for an AI agent. It could be more concise, 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or how the operation fits with other Notion tools. The agent is left without critical context to use the tool 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string with no specification of expected keys or structure. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent with no guidance on what to pass.
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 it's an archive page operation, with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like notion_trash_page or notion_delete_block, but the name itself is specific enough for an agent to infer the 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context provided. The description lacks any usage direction beyond stating it is a Notion connector 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 mentions routing auth context but not whether the action writes, its side effects, error behavior, or required permissions. The lack of destructive hint or read-only indication 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 short and well-structured: a one-line summary, routing context, and parameter list. It wastes no words, but could be expanded with more useful content while remaining 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks context about what the tool does, its scope, and prerequisites. For a bulk update action, more detail is needed to guide the agent's decision.
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%, so the description must add meaning. It briefly describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, but no details on expected structure or examples. This is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 runs a specific domain agent action 'bulk_status_update', but does not explain what a bulk status update does in Notion context. It relies on the action name for meaning, which may be ambiguous among sibling Notion tools like notion_bulk_property_update or notion_bulk_update_pages.
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 other Notion tools. The sibling list is extensive, and the description does not differentiate use cases, leaving the agent to guess based on the action 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 exist, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, auth requirements beyond implied scope, rate limits, or what the action actually does. The behavioral footprint is unclear.
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 short and to the point, with a clear structure: action name, routing context, then parameter list. However, the first sentence is redundant with the tool name and provides no new 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 an output schema (not shown) and only two optional parameters, the description is still insufficient. It does not explain what it means to create a dashboard in Notion, what the return value contains, or how the inputs affect the result. The description assumes knowledge of a domain agent action, which an AI agent may not have.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but clear explanations: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (which only had defaults and types), but is not rich enough to fully guide parameter usage.
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?
The description states 'Run the notion domain agent action `create_dashboard`' which is largely tautological, repeating the tool name without clarifying what creating a dashboard entails in Notion. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling notion_create_* tools like create_page or create_view.
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 discussion of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or suggestions for other tools in related 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, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates a destructive delete operation but does not disclose irreversible consequences, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens after deletion. The behavioral impact is underdescribed.
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 (three sentences) and the routing information is front-loaded. However, conciseness is achieved at the cost of missing critical usage and parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose but collectively insufficient.
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 that output schema exists (context signals), return values are not needed. However, for a destructive operation like deleting a webhook, the description should specify what identifies the webhook (e.g., ID) and any required context. The description is incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?
The single parameter `arguments` is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but no details are given about the expected structure (e.g., webhook ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful guidance for constructing the parameter.
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 identifies the operation as deleting a webhook, but it does not specify which webhook (by ID or name) and does not distinguish from sibling delete webhook tools like clio_delete_webhook or jira_delete_webhook. The purpose is clear generically 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not conditions, and no prerequisites. It only describes routing and arguments, leaving the agent without 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 the full burden. It only mentions routing and arguments, failing to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 includes unnecessary routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'). It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's purpose and parameters.
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 (0 required parameters, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It omits what the tool returns, how to construct the arguments JSON, and when to use it, leaving critical 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with zero schema description coverage. No details are given about what keys or values are expected for get_self, providing no meaningful guidance.
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 'Notion connector operation get_self', indicating a specific verb and resource. While 'self' likely refers to the authenticated user, the description does not clarify what information is returned, making it slightly less precise than ideal.
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 its siblings (e.g., notion_get_user, notion_get_page). The description lacks context about typical use cases 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, and the description only mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., creating or modifying data), auth requirements, expected behavior, or error conditions. The description carries the full burden but fails to give sufficient 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 relatively short and includes an Args list, but it is not well-structured for quick scanning. The first line is a mechanical instruction ('Run the notion domain agent action') rather than a concise purpose statement.
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 an output schema, the description is not required to explain return values, but it lacks essential information about when and how to use the tool. The two parameters are not adequately described, and the overall purpose is vague. The description feels incomplete for a tool that captures meeting notes.
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 labels 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but adds no further explanation about expected structure or content. This is minimal help beyond the schema field titles.
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 mentions 'meeting_notes_capture' as a domain agent action, implying it captures meeting notes, but it does not explicitly state what the tool accomplishes or how it relates to Notion (e.g., creates a page, appends to a database). It is not a tautology but lacks specificity about the actual 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other Notion tools like 'notion_create_page' or 'notion_append_block_children'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or 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?
The description mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some insight into authentication and scoping. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutates data, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description fails to adequately convey 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the action name. It avoids fluff, but the brevity compromises completeness. The structure is clear, and each sentence adds relevant information about routing and parameters.
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 an output schema being present, the description is incomplete for a tool that runs a domain action. It fails to explain what the action does, how the parameters relate to OKR progress, or what kind of response to expect. The agent would need additional context to 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It describes `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some meaning beyond the schema's default/title fields. However, it lacks details on what the `inputs` JSON should contain, constraints, or examples, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 tool runs a notion domain agent action called `okr_progress`, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explain what `okr_progress` actually does (e.g., update OKRs, query progress, etc.), leaving the purpose somewhat vague. It is not a tautology but lacks concrete functional 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion_chat or notion_create_page. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose what the action does, its side effects, or behavioral traits such as whether it reads, modifies, or calls external AI.
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 and front-loaded with the action name and routing information. It includes parameter descriptions without unnecessary fluff, making it efficient despite being sparse.
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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it fails to specify what page is being summarized or how to provide the page reference (e.g., via message or inputs). The description lacks key context for effective use, making it incomplete.
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 description adds basic meaning to the two parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not provide examples or details on the expected structure, limiting its usefulness.
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?
The description 'Run the notion domain agent action `page_summarize`' essentially restates the tool name without explaining what the action does. It does not clarify that this tool is for summarizing a Notion page, leaving the purpose vague and indistinguishable from other notion tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other notion-related tools. There are no exclusions, alternatives mentioned, or context for appropriate use cases, making it difficult for an agent to select it correctly.
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 only mentions routing details and does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, the description should reveal 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is under-specified, which reduces the value of conciseness. No redundant information, but could be better structured.
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 (Notion connector with one generic parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what querying a view accomplishes or what the response contains.
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 adds minimal value: 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' It does not explain the structure or allowed fields of the JSON, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid input.
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's a 'Notion connector operation query_view', which implies querying a Notion view, but doesn't clarify what a view is or how it differs from similar tools like notion_query_database. The purpose is vaguely clear but lacks specificity and sibling 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 other Notion query tools (e.g., notion_query_database, notion_search). Does not mention any prerequisites, constraints, 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 any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. The description only covers routing details, which are not relevant for 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 short (two sentences) but includes non-essential routing information that does not help the agent. It is front-loaded with the tool name but could be more concise by omitting routing 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain how to use the arguments parameter, what search criteria are supported, or how results are returned. For a search tool, this lack of context is a significant gap.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' with no further detail on its expected structure or valid fields. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate and adds little meaning.
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 is a 'search_by_title' operation for Notion, implying search functionality by title. However, it lacks specificity on what the tool actually does (e.g., search pages, databases, etc.) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like notion_search or notion_search_intelligent.
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 other search or notion tools. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 provided. The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke with JWT scope, but fails to disclose behavioral details such as whether it mutates data, what happens if the comment doesn't exist, or what parameters are required. The description does not 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but it is not effectively concise because it lacks substance. The routing information is niche and may not help the agent. Every sentence is present but does not earn its place by providing actionable guidance.
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 an output schema, return values may be covered, but the description fails to outline the required structure of the arguments parameter. For a mutation tool like update_comment, knowing expected fields is critical. The description leaves the agent without enough context to invoke 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%. The description says arguments is a JSON string for the connector operation, but does not specify expected keys (e.g., comment_id, content). This adds minimal value beyond the schema field name.
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's for updating a comment in Notion, but it's generic and doesn't explain what updating entails. It could apply to any Notion connector operation. The name alone provides basic purpose, but the description adds no specific detail about what 'update_comment' does (e.g., edit content, change parent).
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 notion_create_comment, notion_delete_comment, or notion_get_comment. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
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 (e.g., read-only, pagination). It only provides authentication context, not 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 brief but includes unnecessary routing details that could be omitted or placed elsewhere. It is not optimally front-loaded.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what disputes are, how to filter them, or any prerequisites. 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described only as a JSON string, without specifying valid keys or structure. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate.
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 operation as listing disputes from PayPal, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like paypal_list_invoices or paypal_list_transactions.
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. The description only includes routing details, not 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and that arguments are a JSON string. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what data it returns, pagination behavior, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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?
The description is extremely concise at three lines, covering purpose, routing, and parameters. It is front-loaded with the tool name and operation. However, it sacrifices substance for brevity, which may be acceptable if effective, but here it lacks critical 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 tool has no annotations, no schema description coverage, and an output schema exists but is not mentioned, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, how to construct the arguments JSON, or any context about invoice listing behavior.
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% (no parameters documented in schema beyond name and type). The description adds only that 'arguments' is a JSON string, but does not explain the expected keys, values, or structure. This 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name 'paypal_list_invoices' clearly implies listing invoices, and the description confirms it's a PayPal connector operation. However, the description does not elaborate on what 'list' means (e.g., all invoices, filtered), lacking differentiation from sibling tools like quickbooks_list_invoices or xero_list_invoices.
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 other listing tools (e.g., paypal_list_transactions, paypal_list_payouts) or general search/filter alternatives. No 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 are present, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing details but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what the underlying API actually returns. This is insufficient for safe 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 short but includes some extraneous routing information that is of limited value for tool selection. It is not excessively long, but could be more focused on essential usage 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 that the tool has an output schema, return values need not be detailed, but the description still lacks critical context about scope (e.g., all transactions vs. date-filtered), pagination behavior, and how to leverage the 'arguments' parameter. The agent is poorly equipped to invoke this 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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described simply as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaningful semantics—it does not specify expected keys, required fields, or format examples. The agent must guess how to construct valid arguments.
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 name and description clearly indicate the tool lists PayPal transactions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like paypal_list_disputes or paypal_list_payouts, which could confuse the agent about which list tool to use for a given request.
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 paypal_list_payouts or other PayPal list tools. The agent is left without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap 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 brief and front-loaded with essential routing information. No unnecessary words. However, the structure is flat and lacks clear sections for usage or parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 'create journal entry' operation, a description should guide the agent on what to include in the arguments and what response to expect. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description, and the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter details. The tool is not self-contained for effective 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which explains its purpose but provides no further detail on structure, required fields, or valid values. With 0% schema description coverage, this is insufficient for an agent to construct correct input.
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 tool name and description indicate it creates a journal entry in QuickBooks, but the description does not explain what a journal entry is or how it differs from other QuickBooks create operations (e.g., create_bill, create_invoice). The purpose is clear only to users already familiar with QuickBooks accounting.
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 alternative QuickBooks create tools. No usage context, exclusions, or key prerequisites are mentioned. The agent receives no help selecting among sibling 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 provided. The description only adds routing info (JWT, tenant, scope) but doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any other behavioral traits beyond what is obvious from the 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 short and efficient in word count, but the routing detail appears before the usage context, and the parameter explanation is generic.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description omits return value details or side effects. For a list tool, more completeness is expected regarding the 'arguments' structure and what data is returned.
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 lone parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' but no structure or expected keys are provided. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 tool is a Quickbooks connector operation for 'list_classes', but does not explain what QuickBooks classes represent. It is a generic list operation among many similar siblings (e.g., list_departments, list_items) with no 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. The description only mentions routing details, not usage 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?
The description mentions routing through the API under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing limited security context. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, if there are side effects, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. With no annotations, this 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) but includes redundant information (repeating the tool name) and lacks prioritization of critical usage details. It is adequately concise but not optimally structured.
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 that the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still fails to describe how to use the 'arguments' parameter effectively or provide examples. The tool's complete dependency on a hidden connector API makes the description insufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'arguments' parameter. The description only says it is a JSON string of arguments but provides no indication of valid keys, structure, or defaults beyond the empty object. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 it's a QuickBooks connector operation for listing purchase orders. The verb and resource are implied by the name and clarified by the first sentence. However, it doesn't add specific scope or differentiation from siblings, though no sibling duplicates this exact function.
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 other QuickBooks tools or alternative methods. There are no conditions, prerequisites, 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 describe behavioral aspects. It only states the routing and authentication scope. It does not disclose read-only nature, potential side effects, authorization requirements, or pagination. 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 brief and includes routing information, but it omits critical details. It is front-loaded with the purpose but wastes space on routing details that may be generic. It could be more informative in a similar 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?
The tool has an output schema but the input parameter is poorly documented. No behavioral traits, error handling, or usage patterns are described. The agent cannot reliably 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described only as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. The schema provides no details on expected structure, keys, or values. With 0% schema coverage, this description fails to guide the agent on what to provide.
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 tool as a QuickBooks list operation for refund receipts, but it does not differentiate it from other list tools (e.g., list_credit_memos, list_sales_receipts) which could be confused. The name and description are specific but lack distinctive 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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or use cases. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.
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; description only mentions routing details but does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, or auth requirements beyond JWT/scope. For a list tool, transparency is lacking.
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 relatively short but front-loads technical routing instead of core purpose. The 'Args' line is minimal but functional. Could be more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists but details are omitted. No information on what tax codes are returned, filtering, or pagination. For a list operation, description is incomplete.
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?
Only parameter 'arguments' is described vaguely as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. No details on expected keys, values, or format. Schema coverage 0%, and description fails to compensate.
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 it lists tax codes, but does not differentiate from sibling tool quickbooks_list_tax_rates which has 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 like quickbooks_list_tax_rates or other QuickBooks list operations. No 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 solely bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope (common to all such tools) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, rate-limited, or what the response contains. This is insufficient 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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the operation name. However, most content is boilerplate about routing and argument format, which could be more concise if it focused on domain-specific details. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks substantive content.
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 (many sibling tools, no schema descriptions, and output schema exists but unaddressed), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the domain concept of 'terms', the expected arguments, or the return value nature. An output schema exists but provides no context, and the description does not compensate.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which barely adds meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should specify expected JSON keys or structure, but it does not, leaving the agent uninformed about how to construct the argument.
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 is a list operation for 'terms' and identifies the platform tool name, providing verb+resource clarity. However, it does not explain what QuickBooks 'terms' are (e.g., payment terms) or distinguish it from other QuickBooks list tools like list_accounts or list_customers, which all share similar generic descriptions.
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. The description lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clues for selection among many sibling QuickBooks list 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke with JWT scope, but does not specify whether the operation is read-only, mutating, or what side effects (if any) occur. Critical behavioral traits like rate limits 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two sentences plus a parameter line), but it is too sparse to be considered well-structured. It could use more organized formatting, such as listing key behaviors or constraints, while remaining 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 a generic Quickbooks query tool and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what queries are possible, how to structure the arguments JSON, or any constraints like pagination. The presence of an output schema partially mitigates the need for return value documentation, but the overall context is insufficient for effective agent 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?
The single parameter `arguments` is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' but the description does not elaborate on the expected structure, allowed fields, or constraints. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but fails to provide meaningful semantic detail.
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 is a Quickbooks connector operation `query`, but does not clarify what types of queries are supported (e.g., OData, SQL, or specific API endpoints). The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity to distinguish it from more specialized sibling tools like quickbooks_report or quickbooks_list_accounts.
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 generic query tool versus more specific alternatives (e.g., quickbooks_list_invoices, quickbooks_get_entity). The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or recommended 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 for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not explain whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, if it can be safely retried, or if it requires specific permissions. For a status-check tool, details like polling behavior or idempotency 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 brief (2 sentences), avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the sentences are dense and do not prioritize decision-critical information. The routing detail could be deemphasized or omitted in favor of stating the tool's core function.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the result. For a status tool, expected outputs (e.g., job state, error details) are critical. The description also lacks context about the lifecycle of a bulk ingest job and how this step fits in.
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 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'arguments'. The description adds only: 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This confirms the parameter type but provides no information about what keys/values are expected. The agent is left to guess what arguments the connector operation requires.
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 names the tool as 'bulk_ingest_status' but does not explicitly state its purpose (e.g., 'Check the status of a Salesforce bulk ingest job'). It uses a tautological phrasing 'Salesforce connector operation bulk_ingest_status' which provides little clarity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like salesforce_bulk_ingest_results, which might also report status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., when to use status vs. results vs. create). There is no mention of prerequisites, success criteria, or context. The agent has no way to decide if this is the correct tool for checking ingestion progress.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing details but fails to explain what the tool actually does (e.g., creates a query job, runs it, etc.), side effects, or auth requirements beyond the JWT scope.
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 (3 sentences) and structurally adequate, but it sacrifices substance for brevity. While concise, it lacks critical details, making it less useful overall.
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 Salesforce bulk operations and the presence of sibling tools for status and results, the description fails to explain the workflow (e.g., create query, then poll status, then retrieve results). The agent cannot infer how to use this tool 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?
The only parameter is 'arguments' (string). The description adds that it is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, which provides minimal clarity. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify expected keys or format, leaving the agent without enough information to construct valid input.
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?
Description states it's a Salesforce connector operation for bulk_query_create, indicating it creates a bulk query. However, it doesn't explain what a bulk query is or how it differs from sibling tools like salesforce_bulk_ingest_create or salesforce_bulk_query_results, leaving the purpose 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions routing and auth, not the effects of archiving (e.g., channel becomes read-only, can be unarchived, permissions required). Lacks 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 short and to the point, but in this case conciseness sacrifices necessary detail. It is not well-structured to aid understanding.
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 only one parameter and no param documentation, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. Even though there is an output schema, the input spec is missing crucial details about the arguments JSON structure.
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 only one parameter 'arguments' as a JSON string, but no documentation of required or optional fields within that JSON. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description merely repeats 'JSON string of arguments' without adding 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 operation is for archiving a channel. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like slack_unarchive_channel, which is similar but opposite.
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, nor any prerequisites or conditions for usage. The description is purely operational.
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 mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not describe whether the tool is destructive, what it affects, or any side effects. The agent gains no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the 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 concise (three sentences), but the first two are meta information about routing and the platform tool type. The core purpose is not front-loaded. It's acceptable but not optimally structured.
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 apparent simplicity, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'setting a title' means or the expected outcome. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of contextual explanation about the operation's effect.
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 0% description coverage for its single parameter. The description adds only that 'arguments' is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is barely more informative than the schema itself. It doesn't clarify what properties the JSON should contain, leaving the agent to guess.
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 mentions 'assistant_set_title' but doesn't specify what entity's title is being set (e.g., a conversation, a user, or something else). It's vague; a more specific description like 'Set the title for the current Slack assistant conversation' would improve clarity. It names the resource as 'assistant' but the exact resource 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'slack_assistant_set_status' or other Slack tools. No context about prerequisites, when it's appropriate, or situations to avoid 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the routing path and scope, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation. The description is insufficient for 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 relatively short and front-loaded with the tool name. However, it wastes the first sentence on repetition and the second on routing details that are not directly useful for invocation. The Args section is too brief. It could be restructured to provide more useful information in the same 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 that there is an output schema, the description could be more complete regarding return values. It also lacks explanation of how to construct the 'arguments' JSON, prerequisites, or side effects. The description is inadequate for a tool that likely requires specific input to create a channel.
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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with no description. The description adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is minimal. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail on expected keys (e.g., channel name, visibility) but does not.
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 'Slack connector operation `create_channel`', indicating it creates a channel. However, it doesn't specify whether it creates a public or private channel, or any details about the channel creation. The purpose is clear but not specific, and it does differentiate from sibling Slack tools like 'slack_archive_channel'.
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 many Slack-related sibling tools, but the description does not mention when to prefer this over others like 'slack_join_channel' or 'slack_create_conversation_canvas'.
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 compensate, but it only includes routing details (JWT, tenant, scope). It does not disclose irreversibility, permissions, or output behavior, despite the output schema existing.
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 includes routing information that may be unnecessary for tool selection. It could be more front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (delete operation), the description is incomplete. It fails to specify the required arguments structure, making it difficult for the agent to use correctly, even though an output schema exists.
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 'arguments' parameter is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', but the schema has 0% coverage and no documentation of required fields (e.g., file_id). The agent cannot infer what to put in the JSON.
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's the 'files_delete' Slack connector operation, which implies file deletion, but it does not explicitly state the verb and resource (e.g., 'Deletes a file from Slack'). The name helps, but the description is 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 other Slack file tools (e.g., slack_files_info, slack_list_files). No context on prerequisites or when to avoid using 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 the description must bear the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what data is returned, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements (beyond a generic routing note).
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, but the brevity comes at the cost of content. Every sentence is present but offers limited actionable information. It is concise in length but not in providing 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 tool has a parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description should at least mention what the tool returns. It does not. The context is incomplete; the agent has no clear picture of the tool's behavior or output.
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 compensate. It only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value. It does not explain the expected structure or keys, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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 name 'slack_list_files' strongly implies listing Slack files, but the description only reiterates the name as 'Slack connector operation list_files' without specifying scope (e.g., files from a channel, user, or workspace). The description lacks a clear verb and resource distinction, making it slightly 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 is provided on when to use this tool over sibling tools like slack_files_info or slack_files_delete. The description does not mention use cases, context, or exclusions. The routing information is generic and does not help the agent decide.
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 only mentions routing and argument format, but does not disclose any side effects, 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 short and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices critical detail, making it less useful despite being 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 a Slack API operation and the lack of parameter details, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists but is not referenced, and the description does not compensate for the sparse input schema.
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%. The description states that arguments is a JSON string but does not specify the expected keys or values. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input.
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 mentions 'remove_reaction' and the platform tool name, but it does not explicitly state that the tool removes a reaction from a Slack message. The purpose is somewhat inferable from the name 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_add_reaction or slack_list_reactions. The description does not provide 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe what the tool actually does (e.g., where the folder is created, error conditions, side effects). Little transparency beyond authentication context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the tool identity and routing. However, it is too minimal to be effective; conciseness is achieved 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 the absence of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. It lacks explanation of the folder's context, parameter details, and success/error conditions. The output schema exists but the description does not reference 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 single 'arguments' parameter is described as a JSON string of arguments, but the schema lacks descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not specify the expected structure or keys, so it adds minimal value over the schema type.
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 name 'create_folder' suggests creating a folder, but the description only restates the name and adds routing details without specifying what kind of folder or where it's created. It's moderately clear from the name but the description adds no 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other Smokeball create tools or folder listing tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or the role of folders in Smokeball.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions authentication routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The actual creation behavior is undefined.
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 at four sentences, but it includes technical routing details that may not be necessary for an AI agent to understand usage. It could be more focused on the operational purpose rather than invocation mechanics.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns after creation. For a creation tool, the return value (e.g., the created lead object) is critical context. Additionally, the single argument is insufficiently documented, making the tool incomplete for reliable 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?
The input schema has a single 'arguments' parameter of type string with default '{}'. The description states it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify the expected structure, required fields, or examples. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds minimal guidance for constructing valid arguments.
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 names the operation 'create_lead' and mentions it's a Smokeball connector operation, which suggests its purpose. However, it does not explicitly explain what a lead is or how creation works, leaving the purpose somewhat vague. The name and platform tool reference provide minimal differentiation from sibling tools like smokeball_list_leads.
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., smokeball_create_contact, smokeball_create_matter). It lacks any context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into workflows. The agent is left without any decision-making 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 only mentions routing and JWT scope, but fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, or data boundaries. The agent cannot infer safety or 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 short but includes unnecessary routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke') that do not aid selection. The sentences could be reordered or merged for better front-loading of intent.
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 omits essential context like what files are listed (e.g., all files, per matter, per folder), pagination, or output format. Despite having an output schema, the description does not help the agent understand the tool's scope or return shape.
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 only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds negligible meaning. The agent cannot determine what fields or format are expected for the arguments parameter.
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 identifies the tool as 'list_files' with a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., smokeball_list_contacts, smokeball_list_matters), missing the opportunity to specify 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 lacks any conditional logic, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide between this and other smokeball list operations.
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 mentions routing and authentication but fails to disclose key behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or what the operation actually does (lists matter types). The existence of an output schema is not acknowledged.
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 includes unnecessary routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that may distract from the functional purpose. It front-loads the operation name but lacks substance. Could be more concise and relevant.
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 output schema exists, the description should at least mention return types or behavior. It omits any information about what the tool returns, when to use it, or prerequisites. For a list operation, the agent needs to know it returns a list of matter types, but none of that is included.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should clarify expected contents, but it only provides a generic, unhelpful statement.
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 'list_matter_types' which implies listing matter types, but it doesn't explicitly state the purpose or differentiate from siblings like smokeball_get_matter_type. The purpose is inferred from the name, not clearly articulated.
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., smokeball_get_matter_type for a specific type, or other list tools). The description focuses solely on routing and argument format, omitting any context about 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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes routing through an API with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is helpful for auth context. However, it omits critical details like pagination, read-only nature, rate limits, or response format. For a list operation, 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 concise (two sentences plus routing info), but the brevity sacrifices utility. While it is front-loaded with the operation name, it lacks structure and the sentences contribute little information. It is minimally acceptable but not efficient in conveying 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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which likely describes return fields), the description should provide context on what tasks are listed, typical use cases, or filtering. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not; it offers no examples, required keys, or allowed 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 tool lists tasks from Smokeball via the 'list_tasks' operation. The name and text indicate the resource and action, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like clio_list_tasks and xero_list_tasks. However, it does not specify the nature of the tasks (e.g., matter-related or system tasks), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or not. The description only gives technical routing details.
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 only mentions routing and authentication scope but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether the update is partial or full replacement, required permissions, or potential side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden.
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) and front-loaded with the operation name, but the second sentence about routing is boilerplate and adds little value. It could be more informative 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical input guidance. For an update tool, it should specify what parameters can be modified in the layout, but it does not. The description is insufficient for proper 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?
The single 'arguments' parameter is described as a JSON string, but its structure and allowed keys are not explained. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 is an 'update_layout' operation for the Smokeball connector, which implies modifying an existing layout. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'smokeball_create_layout' or 'smokeball_delete_layout', and the description is generic.
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 'smokeball_create_layout' or 'smokeball_get_layout'. There are no usage 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 carries full burden. It only mentions routing details and that it's a connector operation, but discloses no behavioral traits like side effects (creating an invoice), required permissions, or rate limits. The routing info is marginally helpful but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 lines) and front-loads the purpose. It is concise and avoids verbosity, though it sacrifices detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what arguments are needed or what the tool actually accomplishes. Given the single opaque parameter and the presence of sibling Square tools, more context is required for correct 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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds almost no meaning. The schema only defines a generic string, and the description fails to explain what the JSON should contain (e.g., customer, line items).
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 'Square connector operation create_invoice' which identifies the verb and resource, but it's vague and doesn't explicitly say 'Creates an invoice in Square'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'square_create_refund' by operation name, but the purpose is not clearly articulated.
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 only mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope but does not offer context on when to invoke create_invoice over other Square tools or what prerequisites exist.
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 describes the routing mechanism but does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it returns paginated results, or any side effects. The opaque 'arguments' parameter further obscures 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 relatively short (three lines) but includes redundant routing information that may not be essential for tool selection. The 'Args' line is minimal. It is adequate but could be more concise by omitting the low-level routing 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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks key context: what constitutes a balance transaction, how to filter or paginate, and the purpose of the arguments parameter. For a list tool with a single opaque parameter, this is incomplete.
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 only one parameter 'arguments' as a string with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which does not specify the expected keys, values, or format. This fails to compensate for the schema gap and provides no meaningful 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 name 'stripe_list_balance_transactions' clearly indicates it lists balance transactions from Stripe. However, the description merely restates the operation name and doesn't differentiate it from sibling list tools like 'stripe_list_charges' or 'stripe_list_invoices', leaving ambiguity about what a 'balance transaction' specifically 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions routing scope, which is not usage advice. Without context on prerequisites or comparison to other Stripe list tools, the agent cannot determine when this is the appropriate 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements. The routing info is present but does not cover safety 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 free of fluff, but it is not well-structured. It front-loads the operation name and routing info, but the single sentence about arguments is minimal. It is adequate but not efficient in conveying 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 complexity of Stripe connectors and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments JSON, what the response format is, or any operational details beyond routing. The output schema exists but is not described.
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 only parameter is a generic 'arguments' JSON string. The description says it contains arguments for the connector operation, but does not explain what keys (e.g., limit, starting_after) are valid or expected. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.
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 is a Stripe connector operation for listing payouts, which is clear enough from the name and the phrase 'operation list_payouts'. However, it does not explicitly define what a payout is or elaborate on the scope, making it somewhat vague but not a tautology.
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 stripe_list_invoices or square_list_payouts. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions routing and argument format, but does not disclose behavior such as whether the operation is destructive, required permissions, 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 with two sentences, but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. It is adequately concise but lacks structure and valuable content.
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 (part of a large set of siblings, presence of output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, message content, or how it differs from similar tools.
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 should compensate. It only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments, without specifying expected keys or structure, leaving the parameter largely undefined.
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 restates the tool name and mentions it's a Teams connector operation, but does not explicitly state the action (posting a message to a channel). The name implies it, but the description lacks a clear verb+resource statement, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like teams_post_chat_message.
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 focuses on routing details but does not indicate when to use this tool, prerequisites, or 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing and authentication scope but does not indicate whether the operation is destructive or read-only, rate limits, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes routing details that may not be necessary for the agent. It is concise but could be more 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's complexity as a generic wrapper, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the arguments JSON, describe the output (even though an output schema exists), or mention constraints. The agent would lack sufficient context to use the 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 says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the input schema (which has a string parameter with no description). With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what keys the JSON should contain.
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 is a 'Teams connector operation `post_chat_message`', which indicates posting a chat message in Teams. However, it does not specify the destination (chat, channel, or user) or distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like `microsoft_post_chat_message`. The purpose is 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. There are sibling tools like `teams_post_channel_message` and `microsoft_post_chat_message`, but no criteria for selection 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 carries full burden. It does not disclose whether validation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it describe error handling or output behavior.
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 lacks essential information. It fails to provide structure or context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
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 having an output schema (omitted from input), the description does not indicate what the validation returns (e.g., boolean, error list). Given the tool's purpose, an agent needs to know the validation criteria and outcome format.
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 a single required 'run_id' parameter with no description. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning about what run_id refers to or how to obtain it.
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 'validate' and the resource 'AutoCompany run's configuration', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_aoc_run or stop_aoc_run. However, it lacks specifics on what validation entails (e.g., syntax, permissions, completeness).
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_aoc_run or list_aoc_runs. No context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing run or configuration, 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 burden. It mentions routing but not behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or what happens on duplicate. Does not disclose that the arguments must match Xero's create asset API structure.
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 includes routing details that may be extraneous for an agent. No wasted words overall, but could be more focused on core behavior. Structure is a single paragraph, which is acceptable.
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 having an output schema, the description does not reference it or explain return values. For a create tool, it lacks context on how to construct the arguments, what the expected outcome is, and operational details. Incomplete for an agent to use 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?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal value by indicating type but not the expected structure or required fields. Fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 is a 'create_asset' operation for Xero, implying creation of an asset. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'Creates an asset in Xero' or describe what an asset is in this context. It distinguishes from siblings like xero_get_asset (retrieve) but lacks specificity, making it adequate but not excellent.
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., xero_create_bill, xero_create_invoice). No prerequisites or context provided. The description only mentions routing details, not 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 provided. Description does not disclose side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint.
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 short but includes boilerplate about JWT and tenant scope that may not be actionable. Could be more efficient by focusing on tool-specific 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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to explain return values, argument structure, or any constraints. For a creation tool, this is insufficient 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no information about expected JSON structure or required fields, leaving the agent completely 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 states the tool creates a credit note in Xero, but does not differentiate it from sibling tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_create_bill. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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 vs. alternatives (e.g., xero_update_credit_note or other Xero creation tools). No context on prerequisites or typical 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 notes that it routes through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, providing some authentication context. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether it has side effects, rate limits, or specific Xero permissions required.
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 and well-structured, with three clear sections. However, the brevity sacrifices informational 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?
Given that the tool has only one generic parameter and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what fields are needed and what the response looks like. It is insufficient for an agent to use 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 a single generic 'arguments' string parameter with no description. The description only repeats that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', offering no meaningful guidance on the expected structure or 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 mentions 'create_expense_claim' and identifies it as a Xero connector operation, making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like xero_update_expense_claim or xero_list_expense_claims.
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 xero_update_expense_claim. There is no mention of 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error scenarios, or what happens if the connection already exists.
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 with two sentences and a parameter line. It is concise but uses jargon like 'connector operation' without explanation. The structure is acceptable but not enhanced.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: what exactly a feed connection is, what arguments are needed, and what side effects occur. It is insufficient for a user to confidently use 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not detail valid fields, formats, or examples, failing to compensate for 0% schema description coverage.
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 identifies the tool as a 'connector operation create_feed_connection', which implies creating a feed connection in Xero. However, it does not define what a feed connection is or distinguish it from siblings like list and delete. The purpose is only vaguely clear.
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 mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with related operations like listing or deleting feed connections.
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, but only mentions routing and authentication basics. Omits destructive nature, success/failure behavior, rate limits, 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?
Short but includes unnecessary routing details. Could be more concise by focusing on the folder creation function rather than API mechanics.
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 an output schema (unseen), the description lacks return value explanation and fails to specify what constitutes a folder creation request. Leaves agent without essential 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?
Single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with 0% schema description coverage. Description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', adding no meaningful structure or required fields for creating a folder.
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?
States verb 'create' and resource 'folder', but lacks specificity. Does not clarify what a folder represents in Xero (e.g., in Files module) or distinguish from sibling tools like clio_create_folder or smokeball_create_folder.
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. Among many Xero tools and other create_folder tools, the description provides no 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, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing but not side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or what the operation does (e.g., creates a new item in Xero).
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 wastes the first sentence restating the name. It is concise but not well-structured to quickly convey essential information for agent decision-making.
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?
Even though an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks critical context such as what the created item contains, any required fields, or return value. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. No indication of required keys, structure, or examples is provided.
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 name implies creation of an item, but the description is vague, stating only 'Xero connector operation create_item' without explaining what an item represents (e.g., product or service). It does not distinguish from other xero_create_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 xero_create_invoice or xero_create_contact. 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 provided. Description only mentions routing details, not behavioral effects (e.g., financial impact, permissions required).
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 short but includes implementation-routing details. Lacks front-loading of purpose and key usage info.
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 output schema existing, description is too sparse for a financial creation tool. No context on prerequisites, effects, or distinction from similar siblings.
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 sole 'arguments' parameter lacks description in schema (0% coverage). Description only says 'JSON string of arguments' without specifying expected keys or format.
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 creates a payment in Xero but does not clarify whether it's for paying a bill or recording customer payment. This is adequate but not distinguishing among siblings like xero_pay_bill.
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., xero_pay_bill). No prerequisites or conditions 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 mentions routing and scope, but fails to disclose that this is a write operation, whether it is idempotent, or any side effects. The behavioral impact is unclear.
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 contains redundancy (e.g., repeating the tool name) and includes low-value routing details. It could be more concise and focused on the tool's purpose.
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?
The description lacks essential context such as what a receipt represents in Xero, required permissions, typical usage scenarios, and error handling. While an output schema exists, it is not explained.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, but this adds little beyond the schema which already specifies it as a string. No details on required keys or structure are given.
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 indicates it's a Xero connector operation for creating a receipt, but it doesn't specify what type of receipt (e.g., expense or sales) or differentiate it from similar create tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_create_bill. The name 'create_receipt' is clear, but the description 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xero_create_invoice or xero_create_bill. The description only explains the routing and arguments, not 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 behavioral traits. It specifies that the tool routes through an API but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate, or required permissions). The behavior of the 'create_task' operation is essentially opaque, providing minimal assurance beyond it being a connector operation.
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 only two sentences and an 'Args' line, which is not overly verbose. However, the first sentence redundantly states the tool name and platform tool. The structure is acceptable but could front-load more useful information, such as the purpose of the task in Xero, rather than routing 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema shown despite having one), the description should provide a complete picture. It fails to mention the output or return value, which is important for understanding the result of a creation action. The routing information is of secondary importance, and critical context about task creation is missing.
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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must explain the 'arguments' parameter. It merely states it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds little meaning. The agent has no guidance on the structure or required fields within the JSON, making parameter usage uncertain.
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 is a 'create_task' operation for Xero, which indicates the verb (create) and resource (task). However, it lacks specificity about what a task is in Xero's context, making it hard to distinguish from other create tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_create_contact. The platform tool name is provided, but without domain-specific details, the purpose remains 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other create tools or xero_list_tasks). There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. The description only explains routing, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions. Only states the action without any safety or mutability 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 short but includes unnecessary routing information that does not aid tool selection. The argument description is minimal. Structure is adequate but not optimal for quick comprehension.
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?
As a creation tool with a single opaque string parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (despite an output schema being present), what constitutes a valid argument, or what a tracking category is in Xero. The agent lacks enough context to invoke 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 coverage is 0%. The description adds that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but provides no details on the expected structure, required fields, or example values. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid call.
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 tool creates a tracking category, but does not define what a tracking category is or differentiate it from sibling tools like xero_create_tracking_option. The verb and resource are clear, but no additional context distinguishes this from similar 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_create_tracking_option or xero_update_tracking_category. The routing information is operational, not usage-oriented.
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 cover behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through an API under JWT/tenant scope but omits whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur (e.g., creation of a record).
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 wastes space on routing details that may be implicit. It lacks focus on the actual operation. Could be more concise by omitting redundant routing info and adding operation-specific 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?
Given the complexity of creating a tracking option and the absence of annotations or output schema details, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to tracking categories, required data, or response format.
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 coverage and no param descriptions, the description fails to add meaning. It only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments' without specifying required fields, format, or examples. The agent cannot determine what to pass.
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 is for creating a tracking option in Xero, which distinguishes it from siblings like `xero_create_tracking_category`. However, it does not explain what a tracking option is in Xero 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `xero_update_tracking_options`). No prerequisites or context for invocation beyond routing info.
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 cover behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose that the operation is read-only, whether it supports pagination, or what the output format typically includes. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to summarize 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 short (three sentences) and front-loads the operation name. However, it includes routing details that are not essential for function selection, and the 'Args' section provides no useful parameter guidance. Slightly padded.
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 a list operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention that the tool returns a list of contacts, lacks filtering or pagination details, and fails to tie the output schema to the expected behavior. The agent would need external knowledge to use this 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining expected keys or structure, 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?
The description identifies the tool as listing contacts from Xero via the connector operation name and platform tool identifier. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like xero_list_accounts or xero_list_invoices, but the name itself is sufficiently clear.
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 (e.g., xero_list_contacts vs. xero_search_contacts). No context about filtering, bulk retrieval, or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through JWT, tenant, and company scope, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects (if any) occur, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The lack of destructiveHint or readOnlyHint leaves safety unclarified.
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 not optimally front-loaded. The first sentence redundantly repeats the tool name. The routing information is likely irrelevant for the agent's selection and could be omitted. It earns its place but could be more direct.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of file IDs, metadata). For a simple list operation, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the response format. The description is incomplete for practical 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' – a tautology that adds no meaning. It does not explain what keys or values are expected, leaving the agent to guess.
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's a 'list_files' operation, so the purpose is implied by the name. However, it does not specify what kind of files (e.g., attachments, documents) or how it differs from sibling tools like xero_list_folders. The description provides no concrete resource detail.
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 (e.g., xero_list_folders, xero_list_attachments). The description only mentions routing scope, not context 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 briefly mentions routing through the API under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which offers some authorization context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any pagination/limitation 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 very short (three sentences), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. The front-loading is minimal, with the first line being a tautological restatement of 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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations), the description still fails to provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description, and the lack of any behavioral or parameter detail makes it incomplete.
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 only parameter is a generic 'arguments' JSON string with a default '{}'. The description merely repeats that it is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, providing no details on the expected structure or fields. With 0% schema coverage and no additional explanation, this is extremely unhelpful.
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 restates the tool name and mentions it's a Xero connector operation, but does not define what 'linked transactions' are in Xero. It fails to differentiate itself from other Xero list tools, though the name provides some inherent meaning.
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 prerequisites or usage context mentioned. The agent is left guessing when to invoke 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 for behavioral traits. It mentions routing and auth scope, but fails to disclose whether this is a non-destructive read operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any 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 relatively concise but includes potentially unnecessary routing details (e.g., path under JWT). It is front-loaded with the operation name but could be more structured. No wasted words, but lacks depth.
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 an output schema, the description should still explain input semantics and behavioral context. It fails to describe what 'list' means (e.g., full list or paginated), expected arguments, or return format. Incomplete for an effective 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only describes the 'arguments' parameter as a 'JSON string of arguments' with no further detail. The agent cannot infer what fields are valid (e.g., dates, status filters). This adds no meaningful guidance beyond the schema itself.
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 lists manual journals in Xero, with specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_invoices or xero_list_contacts, leaving ambiguity in purpose beyond the 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., xero_get_manual_journal for a single journal). No context about prerequisites, filters, or scenarios. The agent receives no help in deciding to invoke this tool.
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 mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is generic. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or if it has 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 (3 sentences) and avoids fluff, but includes routing information (API endpoint, JWT, tenant) that is likely unnecessary for an AI agent selecting a tool. It could be slightly more focused on functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that lists specific entities (Australian payroll employees), the description lacks details about output structure, filters, or limitations. The presence of an output schema is noted but not leveraged in the description.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' with no further details on expected keys or structure. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate with examples or references.
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 repeats the tool name without elaborating on what 'payroll_au_employees' means. It does not explicitly state that the tool lists Australian payroll employees, relying on the name for clarity. Among similar Xero list tools, this offers no 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 xero_list_payroll_au_timesheets or xero_list_invoices. The description does not mention any prerequisites or 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?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, authentication details, or data freshness. The routing info is generic and not helpful.
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 (3 sentences) but the first two sentences are boilerplate routing info that could be omitted or condensed. The purpose is not front-loaded.
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 an output schema and the specific domain (payroll AU), the description lacks essential context about what leave types are, how to format arguments, and when to use the tool. It is insufficient for an agent to invoke 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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments with no further specification. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no 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 the tool lists payroll AU leave types, which is clear and distinct from sibling tools. However, it doesn't elaborate on what leave types are (e.g., annual leave, sick leave), but the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 xero_list_payroll_au_employee_leave or xero_list_payroll_au_leave_periods. The description offers no 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?
Since no annotations are present, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, required permissions, or any side effects. The routing information is technical but not behavioral.
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 includes redundant name repetition and technical routing info that may be unnecessary. It is adequately concise but not optimally structured for clarity.
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 list operation with many siblings, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what payitems are, how to filter, or what the output schema provides, despite the existence of an output schema.
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 schema has only one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it is a JSON string of arguments but provides no details on the expected keys or structure, leaving the agent to guess or rely on 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 states it is a list operation for payroll AU payitems, which is clear about the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_payroll_au_employees or xero_list_payroll_au_payruns, leaving ambiguity about the specific data returned.
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. The description only includes technical routing details, not practical 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through JWT/tenant/company scope but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or what happens on error. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.
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 (3 sentences) and structured with a header and args line. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential details, so 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?
For a list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected arguments, the return value, or any constraints. The output schema exists but is not referenced or summarized.
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 one parameter 'arguments' of type string. The description labels it as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify what arguments are expected (e.g., project ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.
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 names the operation 'list_project_users', which is somewhat clear, but it does not explicitly state that it lists users for a project. The title is null, and the description merely repeats the operation name without providing a verb+resource statement.
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 other Xero list tools (e.g., xero_list_projects, xero_list_contacts). There is no differentiation from sibling tools, and no context about prerequisites or alternative 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 provided. The description mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and avoids verbosity, but it lacks substantive information. It is not concise in a helpful sense; it is merely sparse.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain the tool's core functionality effectively. The opaque 'arguments' parameter is left unexplained, making the tool hard to use 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without any detail on expected keys or format. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.
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 restates the tool name ('Xero connector operation list_repeating_invoices') but does not explicitly state its purpose: listing repeating invoices. The name is clear, so it's minimally adequate, but the description adds no further clarification.
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 other list tools like xero_list_invoices or how the 'arguments' parameter should be structured. Missing 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. The description only mentions routing, JWT, tenant, company scope, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. The agent gets no insight beyond generic infrastructure details.
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 includes unnecessary technical routing details (e.g., 'Routes through /api/tools/invoke') that are more internal than useful for selection. Could be more concise by focusing on the tool's purpose.
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 0% schema description coverage and no output schema visible, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or what 'statements' are. 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no explanation of structure or expected keys. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about valid inputs, making it unusable for proper invocation.
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 is a 'list_statements' operation for Xero, but does not explicitly define what 'statements' are (e.g., bank statements) or distinguish it from other xero_list_* tools. It conveys the verb+resource vaguely.
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 xero_list_accounts or other Xero list operations. No context on prerequisites or scenario suitability.
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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, destructive nature, permissions required, or side effects. The only behavioral context is routing info, which is generic and not specific to this 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 includes routing details that may be redundant. It is somewhat concise but could be more streamlined and 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 updates an asset in Xero and has many siblings, the description is very incomplete. It does not mention the output schema (even though one exists) or explain the asset update process, leaving significant gaps.
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 schema has 0% coverage and only one parameter 'arguments' described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This does not explain the expected keys, values, or format, leaving the agent without necessary meaning.
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 updates an asset, which is clear from the name, but it does not specify what constitutes an asset in Xero or how this operation differs from creating or disposing of an asset. No sibling differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like xero_create_asset or xero_dispose_asset. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It fails to disclose any side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens when a contact is updated. The routing detail is not behavioral insight.
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 consists of three short sentences, but the first is tautological (restates name), the second provides routing info that may not help an agent decide, and the third minimally describes the parameter. It is concise but lacks substantive content.
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 that the tool updates a Xero contact (potentially many fields) and has an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns or any important context like required contact ID. The minimal text leaves significant gaps 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 only parameter is 'arguments' (a JSON string). The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify the expected structure or fields. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add meaningful guidance beyond the schema's 'Arguments' title.
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 'update_contact' which implies updating a contact in Xero, but it doesn't specify what fields can be updated or how it differs from related tools like xero_create_contact. The name itself provides moderate clarity, but the description adds no additional differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope') and does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_create_contact or xero_list_contacts. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'update_invoice' implying mutation, but there is no mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the invoice is already in a certain state. Routing info adds no behavioral insight.
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 includes unnecessary routing details that may clutter the purpose. It could be more concise and structured by focusing on what the tool does and what arguments are needed.
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 an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still fails to provide adequate context for a connector tool. It does not explain what 'update_invoice' entails, leaving significant gaps for effective 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 only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess valid argument structure. The description fails to 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 indicates this is an update operation for invoices in Xero, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_list_invoices. The purpose is clear as a generic update, but lacks specificity about what fields 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, when an invoice can be updated, or comparison with other Xero tools. The description is purely operational and lacks 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the action is read-only or destructive, nor does it describe side effects, authentication requirements beyond scope, or response format. The routing detail 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes unnecessary implementation detail about the dispatcher. The key action is front-loaded, but the routing information could be omitted. Still, it is not overly 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or expected outcomes. Given the complexity of the coding domain and numerous sibling tools, the description fails to provide sufficient context for the agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool effectively.
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 the description must compensate. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks examples, expected structure, or constraints on the inputs.
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 runs the 'generate_tickets' action in the coding domain, which clarifies it's a coding agent action but does not explain what generating tickets means (e.g., creating tasks, issues, or something else). It lacks specificity to distinguish it from other coding tools like coding_prioritize_backlog or coding_process_single_ticket.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but that is implementation detail, not usage conditions. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context with sibling 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 routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to disclose whether the action is read-only, mutating, safe, or what side effects it may have. This is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral 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 moderately concise at 3 sentences plus an args list. However, the first sentence 'Run the commerce domain agent action `pricing_intelligence`' is nearly tautological and adds little value. The rest is adequate but not optimally front-loaded.
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?
The tool has an output schema but the description omits any mention of return values or response format. It does not address idempotency, safety, or what constitutes a successful invocation. For a tool that delegates to an internal action, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds brief explanations for both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds value beyond the schema, though it is minimal and does not specify formats, constraints, or examples.
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 runs the 'pricing_intelligence' action but does not explain what pricing intelligence does. It is clear that it invokes a specific internal action, but the actual purpose of that action remains vague. Compared to siblings like commerce_pricing_landscape and commerce_price_optimization_run, it lacks functional 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 the many other commerce pricing tools. The description does not mention any contextual cues, 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not indicate whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The action name 'anonymity_guard' implies privacy but is 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. The Arg section is clear but could be more structured. Not overly verbose, but the opening lacks substance.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool among many content-related siblings. It does not explain the action's purpose, expected outcomes, or typical use cases.
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 description adds some semantic value beyond the schema: 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, this is minimal and does not detail expected formats or constraints. Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates.
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 'Run the content domain agent action `anonymity_guard`' but does not explain what the action does. This is a tautology of the tool name. While it identifies verb and resource, it lacks specific purpose or differentiation from sibling content tools like content_analyze_results.
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 or when to choose it over alternatives. The description does not provide context for selection among many content-domain siblings (e.g., content_chat, content_refine). There is no mention of 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?
Without annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral context: it routes through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or output characteristics, which is insufficient for an agent to assess 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 short but inefficiently mixes routing details and parameter list. It could be more concise by focusing on action purpose and outcomes rather than implementation details like 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher'.
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 (agent action with free-text goal and optional inputs), the description omits crucial context: what 'repurpose' achieves, expected output, and when it is appropriate. The existence of an output schema is not referenced, making the description incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON string, but lacks detail on expected format, constraints, or how they influence the action, leaving ambiguity.
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 'Run the content domain agent action `repurpose`', naming the specific action but not defining what 'repurpose' does. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like content_generate_content or content_refine, making the purpose 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. The description lacks context for prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or rate limits. The description adds minimal transparency 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, but includes unnecessary routing context. It is concise yet lacks completeness; every sentence does not earn its place.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool plans or what kind of intelligence it produces. Given the sibling tools and the action name, more context is needed for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic meaning but is not detailed. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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 runs a CRM domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence', but does not explain what that action does. It does not differentiate this from other domain-specific 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools (e.g., coding_plan_domain_intelligence, commerce_plan_domain_intelligence) or other CRM planning tools like crm_agentic_plan.
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 only includes routing details (JWT, tenant, scope) which are implementation-oriented, not usage-oriented.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or what side effects occur. The behavioral detail 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately concise but includes implementation details (e.g., 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that may not be actionable. It could be streamlined to focus on user-facing purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or the business outcome of the expansion playbook. Given the tool's complexity and many sibling tools, more context is needed for the agent to choose correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond parameter names. However, it lacks specifics on expected structure or format for 'inputs'.
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 'Run the customer_success domain agent action expansion_playbook', which identifies a specific verb and resource, but it does not clarify what the expansion playbook actually accomplishes. It distinguishes from sibling tools only by name, lacking unique 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 (e.g., customer_success_churn_risk_scan or customer_success_renewal_pipeline). There are no exclusions or context cues 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 mentions routing and auth scope but does not state whether the tool is read-only or creates persistent state, nor does it describe side effects or output structure. The existing schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds little about 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 relatively short but includes redundant technical routing details ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that do not aid an AI agent in selecting or using the tool. Could be more concise by focusing on the report creation purpose.
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 an output schema (context signal), the description avoids explaining return values but still fails to clarify the tool's role among numerous document_intelligence siblings. It does not specify when to use this tool over others like create_marketing_collateral or write_document.
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 description adds meaning to the two parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but it does not explain the expected JSON structure or provide constraints, leaving interpretation open.
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 tool runs a domain agent action to create a report, but it lacks specificity on what kind of report or how it differs from sibling tools like document_intelligence_write_document or create_spreadsheet. The verb 'create' is clear, but the resource 'report' is 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare to similar tools in the document_intelligence family.
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 discloses that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under authentication scopes. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. This is minimal transparency beyond the auth context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. The first sentence is the main function, the second adds routing context, and the third lists parameters. It is front-loaded enough and avoids unnecessary words, though the first sentence could be more 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 that the tool has an output schema (so return values are documented there) and two parameters, the description lacks a clear statement of what the tool actually accomplishes (e.g., list folder contents vs. list folders). With siblings like `document_intelligence_search_folder` and `list_folder`, this omission makes the description incomplete for an agent to select the correct tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description adds meaningful semantics: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies that message is a high-level goal and inputs are structured parameters, which helps an agent understand how to use these parameters.
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?
The description states 'Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `list_folder`' which is almost tautological. It does not clarify what listing a folder means (e.g., listing folder contents or subfolders). The title is null, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools like `document_intelligence_search_folder` or the generic `list_folder`, both of which could be confused with this tool.
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. The description only mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is infrastructure detail, not usage context. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to state whether the action is read-only, destructive, or idempotent. No side effects or return behavior are described.
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 relatively short but includes technical routing details that are likely unnecessary for the agent. The first sentence is nearly tautological, and the second sentence adds implementation detail rather than core purpose.
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 an engineering tool that compares model versions, the description is minimal. It does not describe what 'model versions' are, what the output looks like, or any constraints. Given the complexity and the presence of output schema, more context is needed to avoid confusion with tools like engineering_run_clash_analysis.
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 the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While helpful, it does not specify the expected structure of the JSON or provide examples, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 'Run the engineering domain agent action compare_model_versions', which is nearly tautological but includes the verb 'compare' and resource 'model versions'. However, it does not clarify what types of models are being compared (e.g., ML models, CAD models) and lacks context that distinguishes it from other engineering tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or any comparison to siblings like engineering_query_analytics or engineering_design_loop.
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 is the sole source. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive. The name implies creation but 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?
Description is short but not optimally concise; the second sentence about routing is arguably irrelevant for tool selection. It front-loads the action name but wastes space on implementation details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and a non-trivial domain action, the description fails to explain the tool's purpose, inputs, or outputs. The agent lacks context to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds basic meaning: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This is minimal but better than nothing. Lacks details on input format or constraints.
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 runs a specific finance domain agent action but does not clarify what the action does (e.g., create a fraud case file). The verb 'Run' is vague, and the resource is not defined beyond the 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 siblings like finance_anomaly_investigation or finance_fraud_investigation. No prerequisites or exclusions 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. Description does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, or behavioral constraints beyond routing through the dispatcher under JWT scope.
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?
Succinct with front-loaded action name, but overly minimal; could be more informative without much additional text.
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 complex loop tool, description is insufficient. Output schema exists but not leveraged. Agent lacks understanding of tool's full scope and expected outcomes.
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?
Description adds meaning: message is free-text objective, inputs is optional JSON string. But lacks detail on acceptable formats or structures for the inputs parameter.
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?
Description states it runs a grant full lifecycle loop, but does not explain what that entails or how it differs from other grant tools like finance_grant_application_compile.
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 when-not 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 provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with authentication scope, but does not disclose side effects, read/write nature, or what the action actually does beyond being a dispatcher.
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 reasonably concise with three sentences and two bullet-like arg descriptions. It front-loads the main action but includes implementation detail about routing that may not be essential. Overall efficient but could be more 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?
The tool is part of a large family of finance_xero tools. The description lacks specifics about what the reporting pack produces, expected input formats for message or inputs, and what output to expect (despite having an output schema). It is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, providing useful context beyond the schema's titles and types.
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?
The description states it runs the 'xero_reporting_pack' action but does not specify what reporting pack entails. It uses vague terms like 'free-text objective' without clarifying the tool's specific function. Among many sibling xero reporting tools (e.g., xero_balance_sheet_report), this tool's purpose is unclear.
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 individual xero report tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only includes routing information (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, read-only, or requires permissions, nor any rate limits 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 but includes boilerplate routing information that may be redundant. It could be more concise by focusing on tool-specific 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 output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter with no description, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to construct the arguments, or when to use this tool among many GitHub workflow tools.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to clarify what fields are needed (e.g., run_id, repo).
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 it is a GitHub connector operation 'rerun_workflow_run', which clearly indicates the tool reruns a workflow run. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cancel_workflow_run', it does not elaborate on the specific meaning of rerun (e.g., retry failed run).
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 'github_dispatch_workflow' or 'github_trigger_workflow'. No prerequisites 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but does not reveal side effects, auth requirements beyond context, rate limits, or what happens during the compliance check. This is insufficient for a mutation-like 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 short and front-loaded, but it lacks clear structure. It uses bullet points for args, but the overall flow is not organized. Every sentence serves a purpose, but the information is too sparse to be fully 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention return values or the outcome of the compliance check. Given the tool's action-driven nature and the presence of many sibling tools, more context about what the action accomplishes is needed for completeness.
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 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter documentation adds value. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, which clarifies intent beyond the schema's defaults. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not specify formats or examples.
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 runs the 'hr domain agent action compliance_check', which clearly identifies the action, but it does not distinguish this tool from other HR-related siblings like hr_chat or hr_lookup. The purpose is moderately clear but lacks specific scope or 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or recommended contexts. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.
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 routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some transparency. However, it omits critical details such as whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects, and does not disclose permissions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is concise but incomplete, meaning every sentence does not fully earn its place due to missing critical 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's moderate complexity (two parameters with no schema descriptions, and an output schema not shown), the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and sufficient parameter guidance, making it inadequate for an agent to decide when and how to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This provides basic semantics but lacks specifics on valid formats, expected structures, or examples, which is insufficient for an agent to craft correct inputs.
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 runs a specific domain agent action 'cloud_delivery_setup', which indicates a setup operation for cloud delivery. However, it does not explain what 'cloud_delivery_setup' actually accomplishes or how it differs from siblings like it_ops_cloud_ops or it_ops_deployment, leaving the purpose 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is provided about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for choosing this tool.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but provides no information on side effects, safety (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, error handling, or output behavior. Without annotations, these gaps are significant.
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 and two param descriptions. Front-loaded with the action name. No redundancy or fluff.
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 output description, use-case examples, and differentiation from numerous sibling tools. With an output schema available but not utilized, the description feels incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
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?
Adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, with 0% schema coverage, these descriptions are minimal and do not clarify expected content or structure, leaving ambiguity.
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 runs the 'ip_deadline_check' domain agent action. While the name is specific, the description merely rephrases the tool name without explaining what the action actually does, leaving the purpose vague.
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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like legal_ip_docket_sync or legal_tm_clearance_search. The description lacks context for optimal usage.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions routing infrastructure, not side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral details. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main action. It uses a clean bullet list for parameters. Every sentence is functional, though it could be improved by adding more value 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 an output schema but the description fails to explain what the tool actually accomplishes (register a trade secret? what does that entail?). The description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs a specific business function.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides minimal descriptions ('Free-text objective', 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') that add some meaning but are too vague to significantly aid an agent in constructing correct inputs.
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 runs the 'trade_secret_register' domain agent action, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like legal_breach_response or legal_compliance_monitoring, limiting its purpose clarity slightly.
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. The description lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative indicators, which is a significant gap.
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 mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or what the output contains.
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 short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, which limits its usefulness.
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 zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described, the description fails to provide essential context. The agent cannot determine what vendor_renew does, what inputs to provide, or what output to expect, making it nearly unusable without external knowledge.
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 the description must compensate. It provides basic meaning: 'message' is 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some context but lacks detail on expected format or constraints.
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 'Run the legal domain agent action vendor_renew' which identifies a specific verb and resource, but it does not explain what vendor_renew actually does (e.g., renew a vendor contract). The purpose is implied by the name but remains vague, especially among many legal vendor sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 legal_vendor_onboard or legal_vendor_risk_score. There are no prerequisites, context conditions, or explicit when-to-use statements.
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 only states that the tool routes through an API under JWT scope, which is generic. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, pagination, or what happens when called (e.g., whether it lists all databases or requires filters). The minimal information is insufficient for safe usage.
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 (3 lines) and has a clear structure (intro, routing, args). However, it is too concise, omitting essential details like return type or usage notes. Conciseness is achieved at the expense 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?
Despite having an output schema (not described) and only one parameter, the description fails to explain the tool's output, the meaning of 'arguments', or how the tool interacts with Notion. For a tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, this is severely under-specified. The description does not enable an agent to use the tool 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only says the single parameter `arguments` is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. This adds vague context but does not specify what keys or values are expected. The agent cannot infer valid argument structure from this.
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 explicitly states it's a 'Notion connector operation `list_databases`', and the name strongly indicates listing databases in Notion. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like `notion_query_database` or `notion_search`, and doesn't describe what exactly a 'database' is in Notion context. The mention of platform tool identifier adds 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 `notion_query_database` or `notion_search`. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. 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.
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 only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is implementation detail. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or any limitations. The name suggests a query, but no explicit guarantees are given.
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 includes a redundant first sentence that mirrors the tool name. The args section is structured but could be more efficient. Every sentence earns its place, but the overall clarity is limited.
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 (query with two optional params and an output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, query capabilities, error handling, or practical usage tips. The presence of an output schema should reduce the need for return value description, but the description still lacks guidance on how to formulate queries effectively.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic explanations: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This clarifies that 'message' is a natural language objective and 'inputs' is a JSON structure, but it lacks details on format, examples, or how these interact. It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.
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 runs the 'query_data' action, which is a tautology of the tool name 'notion_query_data'. It does not specify what data is being queried or the result, only mentioning routing details. Among sibling tools like notion_query_database and notion_search, there is no differentiation. The purpose is vaguely implied but not clearly articulated.
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. The sibling list includes many notion query tools (notion_query_database, notion_query_data_source, notion_query_view, notion_search) and other domain query tools, but the description offers no context for selection. Users must infer based on 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or what changes occur (e.g., creation of a document, update of a status). The tool likely generates or modifies data, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two sentences plus parameter lines), but the first sentence is nearly tautological with the tool name. It includes implementation details about routing and scope that may not be necessary for an AI agent. The structure is acceptable but could be more impactful with clearer separation of purpose 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 two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the weekly status report action does, what the output contains, or when it is appropriate to use. The agent would need external knowledge to understand this tool's role.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds descriptions for both parameters: 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this provides some meaning, the descriptions are vague and do not specify expected formats, defaults, or examples, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 'Run' and the resource 'notion domain agent action weekly_status_report', indicating it executes a specific action. However, it does not explain what a 'weekly status report' is or what the action accomplishes, leaving the purpose vague for an AI agent. It distinguishes from siblings only by naming the specific action, but lacks clarity on its function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 other Notion tools or alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the AI agent without clear directions 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?
The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits beyond being a connector operation. It does not mention read-only nature, required permissions, or return value characteristics. With no annotations, the description should provide more context but fails to do so.
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 fairly concise but includes routing implementation details ('Routes through `/api/tools/invoke`...') that are unnecessary for tool selection and add noise. It could be more focused on the tool's purpose and usage.
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 having an output schema, the description omits critical context such as what entity reactions are listed from (message, channel). The parameter documentation is insufficient, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly invoke the tool for its intended use case.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the expected JSON structure, but it does not. The baseline score is 3 due to low parameter count.
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 tool is a 'Slack connector operation `list_reactions`', identifying the verb and resource. However, it fails to specify what reactions are being listed (e.g., on a message, channel, or user). This vagueness reduces clarity compared to more specific descriptions.
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. While sibling tools like 'slack_add_reaction' and 'slack_remove_reaction' exist, the description does not differentiate use cases or provide context for when to list reactions.
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 it 'runs' an action and 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher', but does not clarify whether it is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The behavior of scheduling optimization is not described.
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 (three sentences) but not optimally structured. The first sentence defines the action, the second explains routing, and the third lists arguments. It could be more succinct by merging the first two sentences. The argument list is clear but not front-loaded with the most critical 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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it fails to cover other contextual aspects such as prerequisites, success/failure behavior, or typical use cases. For a solver tool that likely involves complex optimization, the description is insufficiently 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 description coverage is 0%, and there are 2 parameters with defaults. The description adds 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action', which provides basic meaning beyond the schema's type/default. However, it lacks detail on format, constraints, or examples, so it is minimally adequate.
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 runs the 'solver domain agent action schedule_optimization', which names the specific action but does not explain what scheduling optimization does. It is not a tautology but lacks a clear, standalone purpose statement that would differentiate it from other solver tools like solver_solve_optimization.
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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is authentication context rather than usage direction. No exclusions or alternative tools are referenced.
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 fully convey behavior. It only says 'List recent Stripe charges.' and lists parameters. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, whether it returns all charges or paginated, any rate limits, or what constitutes 'recent'. This is insufficient for safe use.
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 but includes an incomplete line for limit (just 'limit: ' with no explanation). This suggests a cut-off or error, making it less useful. While conciseness is valued, missing content is not acceptable.
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, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'recent' means, whether charges are sorted, and any restrictions. It fails to address these gaps, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.
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 add meaning. It provides brief descriptions for customer_id and from_date (e.g., 'Stripe customer ID to filter by', 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)') but the limit parameter has an empty description. This incomplete coverage leaves the agent unsure about the limit field's purpose and constraints.
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 'List recent Stripe charges.' which clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (Stripe charges). It is distinct from sibling stripe tools like stripe_list_invoices and stripe_list_payouts, but 'recent' 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stripe_list_balance_transactions or stripe_list_invoices. There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help the agent decide when to invoke this tool.
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 discloses that the tool is HITL-gated, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or what happens after proposing (e.g., creation of a pending action). With no annotations, the description should provide more 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 concise at one sentence, front-loading purpose and gating. However, it lacks any additional structure or detail that would improve usability without being overly 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 the complexity of a payroll true-up tool with a JSON body input and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the output represents, expected JSON keys, or how the proposal is processed, 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It states 'Body is JSON', which adds that the string parameter should be JSON, but does not specify the expected structure, required fields, or provide examples. This is insufficient for correct 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 tool proposes a payroll true-up into Xero, using a specific verb and indicating HITL gating. However, it does not distinguish from similar siblings like finance_xero_payroll_trueup or other intake tools, and 'payroll true-up' may not be universally understood without 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as xero_intake_bill or finance_xero_payroll_trueup. There is no mention of 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and scope but does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, describe side effects, or indicate required permissions beyond the implied JWT scope.
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 (three sentences) but includes irrelevant routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke') that do not aid an AI agent in correct invocation. The first sentence is clear, but the second sentence adds little 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?
Although the tool has an output schema, the description does not mention return values or behavior. For a list operation with a flexible JSON argument, more context on expected output or filtering is needed for 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description merely restates the schema by noting that 'arguments' is a JSON string. No explanation of what keys or values are expected is provided, limiting its usefulness.
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 identifies the tool as an Airwallex connector operation to list balances, with a clear verb-resource combination. However, it does not specify the exact type of balances (e.g., account or wallet) or provide differentiation from sibling tools like airwallex_list_payouts.
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 airwallex_list_payouts or airwallex_list_transactions. There is no mention of 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions routing and argument format but does not disclose side effects, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the operation fails. For a list operation, details about subset selection or ordering 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 relatively short but includes technical routing details (e.g., 'Routes through `/api/tools/invoke` under your JWT') that may not be actionable for the agent. It could be streamlined to focus on the operation's behavior and inputs.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., list of bills, pagination info). It also lacks context about authentication scope or the connector's capabilities. Given the absence of annotations, the description should provide more behavioral and return-value context to guide the 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 single parameter `arguments` is a JSON string with zero schema description coverage. The description states it is 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal context beyond the schema's type constraint. It does not enumerate what keys or values are valid, leaving the agent to infer or guess the required 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 tool name and description clearly indicate it lists bills from Bill.com. The phrase 'Billcom connector operation `list_bills`' and the `list_bills` in the name make the purpose evident. However, the description does not elaborate on the scope or filtering capabilities, which would help differentiate it from other billcom tools like `billcom_approve_bill` or `billcom_create_bill`.
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 other billcom tools or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or typical use cases. The lack of usage heuristics leaves the agent without decision support for tool 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 carries full burden. It only adds routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the 'create' operation entails beyond the 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 short (4 lines) and front-loads the name. However, the 'Args' section is redundant given the schema, and routing details are standard. It could be trimmed without losing 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain the purpose or content of the JSON arguments. For a create operation, this is incomplete—agents need to know what fields to include. Sibling tools like billcom_create_bill or xero_create_bill don't affect this tool's own description adequacy.
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 only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds marginal meaning but does not specify the expected JSON structure or fields, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.
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 'create_bill' and mentions it's a Clio connector operation, making the verb and resource clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like clio_list_bills or explain what a bill represents in Clio (e.g., invoice, time entry).
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, exclusions, or context provided. Many clio_* siblings exist, but the description offers no usage direction.
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 inform behavior. It only mentions routing info (JWT, tenant, scope) but does not disclose irreversibility, potential errors, or impact on integrations.
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 (3 sentences) but the first sentence is redundant with the tool name. The routing info is possibly useful but the parameter description is vague. Overall, it is concise but lacks informative density.
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 the presence of sibling webhook tools, the description should explain what arguments are needed (e.g., webhook ID) and any side effects. It falls short, leaving the agent with insufficient 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the 'arguments' parameter. It only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which is too generic and does not specify required fields like webhook_id.
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 tool name and description clearly indicate it is for deleting a webhook in Clio, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clio_create_webhook or clio_update_webhook. However, the description merely restates the operation name without additional clarification.
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 clio_update_webhook or clio_list_webhooks. Missing prerequisites like requiring a webhook 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has rate limits. Critical behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but includes technical routing details that may not be actionable for an agent. It is not overly verbose, but could be more focused on tool-specific 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?
Despite having an output schema, the tool's description lacks sufficient context for the input and behavior. The single parameter is poorly documented, and the tool's role within the Clio ecosystem is not elaborated. Minimal 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description (0% coverage). The description merely repeats that it's a JSON string of arguments, adding no structural or semantic meaning to help the agent construct valid input.
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 lists practice areas via a Clio connector operation. The name and description align on the resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling Clio list tools beyond mentioning the resource 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. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints are provided. The agent receives no help in deciding whether this 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It states the action without disclosing side effects, state requirements (e.g., request must be pending), or reversibility. Behavioral details are 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 very concise (one sentence), but it is front-loaded. However, it is too brief, sacrificing important details. Conciseness is good, but it borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no param descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome, error handling, or success criteria. Although simple, an output schema exists, but the description fails to add necessary 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 has 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no additional meaning beyond parameter names. 'workspace_id' and 'request_id' are self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their role or format.
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 'Deny a pending access request' clearly states the action and object, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'code_workspace_approve_access_request' which performs the opposite action. 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 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 'code_workspace_approve_access_request'. The description does not specify context, 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?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., irreversibility, required permissions, side effects). No annotations are present to compensate.
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 (4 words), but lacks structure or additional context. It serves the minimum purpose but could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It is functional but lacks completeness for unfamiliar agents.
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 to the parameters (workspace_id, link_id). The agent must infer their roles from the 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 'Revoke a share link' clearly states the action and target. It is not a tautology and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'code_workspace_create_share_link'.
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 removing collaborators or other share link operations.
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. The description is too brief to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, cost, or whether it returns aggregated data. It adds little beyond the 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 a single sentence, making it concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary detail 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not hint at the output structure or content. For a tool that aggregates insights, more context about what is returned is needed. The description is 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?
Only one parameter (workspace_id) with no schema description (0% coverage). The description does not explain the parameter's meaning, source, or any constraints. It adds no 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 uses 'aggregate run-quality insights' which indicates it summarizes metrics about run quality. It distinguishes from sibling tools like code_workspace_runs (listing runs) and code_workspace_get_run (single run). However, it lacks specificity about what type of insights (e.g., success rate, duration), so it could be clearer.
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 scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool 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 carries full burden. It explains routing through the platform's dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The term 'git_status' implies a read operation, but not stated explicitly.
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 includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Routes through...'). It front-loads the core action but could be more concise. Every sentence earns its place, though the parameter descriptions could be integrated more efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description does not clarify the purpose of the parameters or the expected behavior of the git_status action. For a tool that wraps a domain action, more context (e.g., 'shows current git status such as staged, unstaged, and untracked files') would be valuable. The tool name provides some completeness, but the description could be more helpful.
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 describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds minimal meaning; 'free-text objective' is vague and does not clarify what the objective should be. The description partially compensates but 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 states 'Run the coding domain agent action git_status', which clearly specifies the verb and resource. The name itself implies checking git status, but the description could be more explicit about the actual effect (e.g., 'show current repository status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by being specific to git status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when not to use it or contrast with other coding tools like coding_run_command or coding_read_code. The description lacks context for appropriate invocation.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or return value expectations.
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 short and front-loaded with the key action. The args list is clearly formatted. No unnecessary sentences, though it could benefit from more substance.
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 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and a large sibling set with similar names, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's outcome or how it fits with other coding tools. The presence of an output schema is noted but not leveraged.
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 the description compensates by explaining 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds basic semantics beyond the schema, but lacks examples or detailed constraints.
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 'Run the coding domain agent action growth_loop_web_development', which provides a verb and a specific resource. However, it does not explain what the action does beyond its name, and it fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like coding_chat or coding_explain_code.
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. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description mentions routing through a dispatcher and scoping, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, permissions, or whether it reads/writes data. Behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 lines plus 2 arg lines) and front-loaded with the action name. No redundant 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites. Lacks detail on what the watch_slack action does, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal semantics: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This provides some context but is vague about the expected JSON structure.
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 runs the 'coding domain agent action watch_slack' and explains the routing mechanism, but does not specify what watching Slack entails. The name suggests Slack monitoring, but the description lacks concrete 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 vs siblings like coding_chat or coding_search. The description only notes platform scoping (JWT, tenant, company), which is generic.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and scope, but does not indicate whether the action is destructive, creates resources, or requires authentication beyond JWT. The term 'build' suggests mutation, but no explicit confirmation.
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 succinct—4 sentences with clear front-loading of the action name and routing context. Each sentence adds information, though the overall brevity limits 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 complexity (2 optional params, no annotations, many similar siblings), the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It omits return value details (despite an output schema existing), side effects, and usage context. The agent must rely on the action name alone.
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 the description compensates minimally by explaining `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema titles, but lacks detail on expected JSON structure or constraints.
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 'Run the coding domain agent action `website_growth_loop_build`' and mentions routing through a dispatcher, but does not explain what the action accomplishes beyond its name. It vaguely distinguishes from siblings like `coding_app_growth_loop_build` by the action name only, lacking specific verb-resource 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 mention prerequisites, side effects, or situations to avoid. Siblings like `coding_app_growth_loop_build` are not differentiated.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it fails to disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, rate-limited, or has 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two sentences for action explanation plus two brief bullet points for arguments. It is front-loaded with the action name and routing mechanism, 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks overall context: it does not explain what 'assortment_gap_analysis' does, when to invoke it, or what input format is expected beyond free text. The routing detail is helpful, but the tool remains largely opaque.
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 compensate. It describes 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string for structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide examples or details on expected JSON structure.
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 runs a specific commerce action 'assortment_gap_analysis' but does not explain what the analysis does. Among siblings, there is a similar 'product_assortment_gap_analysis' tool, yet no differentiation is provided. The purpose is vaguely defined as executing a domain agent 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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling commerce tools, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It describes routing but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, nor any side effects, rate limits, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and bullet-like args. It front-loads the main purpose and keeps it short, though the args formatting 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?
The tool has an output schema but it is not shown, and the description does not explain return values. Given zero annotation coverage and a simple input schema, the description leaves gaps in expected behavior and results.
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 has 0% description coverage; description adds that 'message' is free-text objective and 'inputs' is optional JSON string, providing basic semantics. However, it does not specify expected structure for inputs.
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 runs the 'cash_position' agent action but does not explain what cash_position means or what resource it operates on. Among many commerce siblings, it fails to distinguish itself.
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 other commerce tools. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but gives no contextual usage advice.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not indicate side effects, read-only nature, required permissions, or action behavior. This is insufficient for safe selection.
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 and to the point. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; more description could improve clarity without much bloat.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: no explanation of the action's purpose, return value, or how it differs from sibling commerce tools. This limits an agent's ability to select and use it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the message parameter as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter names, helping an agent understand their purpose.
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 runs the category_landscape action, but does not explain what that action does. While the name suggests a commerce category landscape, the description is vague and does not distinguish it from similar tools like commerce_pricing_landscape.
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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description only explains how it routes requests, not 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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires special permissions, or has rate limits. The mention of JWT/tenant/company scope is standard and 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 short and front-loaded with the key information. It avoids verbosity and uses an Args section for parameters. However, it could be more structured with clearer sections.
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 an output schema existing, the description is too thin to be complete. It fails to explain what 'cross_agent_insight' does, how it relates to other commerce tools, or what constitutes a successful invocation. The lack of annotations and parameter details compounds the gap.
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 description adds basic meaning to the two parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. Given 0% schema coverage, this provides some value, but it lacks detail on expected input format, constraints, or examples.
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 tool runs a 'cross_agent_insight' action for the commerce domain, but it does not explain what this action does or what kind of insight it provides. It lacks specificity and does not differentiate from the many sibling commerce tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, typical use cases, or when not to use it. The description is purely procedural.
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 should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, read-only vs mutation, or rate limits. It only describes routing context but does not indicate whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or what happens to data. This gap leaves the agent uncertain about 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 concise: three sentences and an argument list. It front-loads the core verb and resource. While efficient, it sacrifices informativeness; the same length could add more value without reducing 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 (2 optional params, many sibling tools, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the action returns, how it relates to siblings, or typical use cases. The agent lacks sufficient context to select this tool over alternatives like 'commerce_customer_segment' or 'commerce_chat'.
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 the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults. However, it lacks details like expected format or examples, providing only basic semantics.
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 runs the 'customer_360' action within the commerce domain agent, which identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what the action does (e.g., retrieve customer overview, analyze data), making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like 'commerce_customer_profile' or 'commerce_customer_value_summary'.
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 mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (authentication/authorization) but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, 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?
The description discloses routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, adding some transparency. However, it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor does it mention side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Since no annotations exist, more detail was expected.
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 relatively concise at four lines plus Args, with no redundant information. However, it could be shortened by removing the routing details that may not be essential for the 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to mention what the tool returns. Given the simple parameters and lack of annotations, the description should provide more context about the tool's output and usage scenarios to be 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?
The Args section provides brief descriptions for the two parameters: 'message' as free-text objective, and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This adds value beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage), but the descriptions remain generic and do not specify allowed values or structure.
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?
The description states it runs the commerce domain agent action 'economic_context', but does not explain what this action does or what 'economic context' means. It fails to distinguish itself from other commerce_* sibling tools, making the purpose 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision 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, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope but does not specify side effects (e.g., data creation), idempotency, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short sentences and a clear arg list. No extraneous text, though the first sentence is somewhat tautological.
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?
The tool has an output schema and two parameters, but the description lacks context about what the action accomplishes, return values, or when it is appropriate to use. It feels incomplete for an action that likely ingests data.
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 the description must compensate. It defines `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding some meaning beyond schema titles, but lacks format details and examples.
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 'Run the commerce domain agent action `market_observation_ingest`' but does not explicitly say what the action does (e.g., ingest market observations). It gives some context about routing and scope but the purpose remains 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 vs. alternatives like `commerce_market_observation_query` or other commerce tools. 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 provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing via domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, authentication requirements beyond the scope, rate limits, or what happens upon invocation.
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 short (4 sentences including the Args block) and directly communicates the action and parameters. Some routing details could be considered extraneous, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the workflow's outcome, state transitions, or return values. Key context such as what triggers an approval, how results are obtained, and how to properly use the inputs is missing. Significant gaps remain.
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 Args block adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail is needed to compensate (e.g., expected structure of inputs). Minimal but not absent.
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 runs the 'po_approval_workflow' action and mentions routing, but does not explain what a PO approval workflow does or how it differs from sibling tools like procurement_po_approval_workflow. The purpose is implied but 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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely operational.
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 carry the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. Behavioral traits are not addressed.
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 and a parameter list. It front-loads the action name and routing. No redundancy, but could benefit from more detail 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. It omits the purpose of the sourcing brief, expected input formats, and output structure. For a tool with many commerce siblings, this lack of completeness makes it hard for an agent to determine suitability.
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%, but the description adds minimal semantics: it explains that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This provides some meaning beyond the schema's titles and types, though no examples or constraints are given.
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 runs the commerce domain agent action `sourcing_brief`, but does not explain what sourcing_brief accomplishes or how it differs from sibling tools like commerce_procurement_brief. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity and 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. There is no mention of preconditions, typical use cases, or when to use other commerce tools. The description only mentions routing scope.
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 carries full burden. It discloses routing behavior but does not specify if the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or whether it requires specific permissions. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 relatively concise: two sentences plus a bullet list for parameters. It avoids redundancy and is structured clearly. However, it could be more compact by omitting unnecessary routing details that may be assumed.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns, prerequisites, error conditions, or the purpose of the action. For a tool that dispatches a domain agent, more context is needed to understand its role in a workflow.
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 has 0% description coverage. The description adds brief semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is minimal but adds some value beyond the schema's default values and titles.
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 runs the 'sync_status' action, but does not explain what sync_status does or what it accomplishes. The purpose is clear as 'run this action' but vague on outcome. Distinction from sibling sync tools (e.g., commerce_catalog_sync, commerce_resume_sync) is not made.
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 routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides authorization context but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commerce_sync_history or commerce_catalog_sync. No 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing and scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. The description lacks behavioral traits essential for safe invocation.
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 brief, with three short paragraphs. It is efficiently structured, though the routing details could be considered unnecessary. Overall, it is appropriately sized and not 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 a risk assessment action, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does operationally, what the output is (despite an output schema existing), or how the risk assessment is performed. The core functionality is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds basic meaning beyond names, but no details on expected format, constraints, or examples are given.
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 runs a 'vendor_risk_assessment' action, which is a specific resource. However, it does not define what a vendor risk assessment entails or how it differs from similar commerce tools like 'commerce_supplier_evaluation' or 'commerce_vendor_onboarding'. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher. Without contextual cues, an AI agent cannot determine when to choose this tool over 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 present, so the description must bear the burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits details like side effects, idempotency, or error scenarios.
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 short (4 lines) with an Args section, no redundant content. It is efficient and easily scannable.
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 large set of sibling content tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the dispatch action accomplishes, how it differs from similar tools, or what the output schema contains (though present).
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 the description adds value by labeling 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, the descriptions are generic and lack detail.
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 runs the 'dispatch' action in the content domain, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'content_chat' or 'dispatch_domain_agent'. The purpose is 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only vs mutation), error behavior, or any rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at four lines plus arg list, front-loading the main purpose. It wastes no words, but could slightly improve structure by separating the action description from routing 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 that an output schema exists but is not shown, and the tool has many siblings with similar patterns, the description does not explain the output or provide sufficient context for an agent to understand its role or when to invoke it. Missing details on what the action produces or its prerequisites.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds brief explanations for both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. However, it does not describe expected format or provide examples, limiting the added value.
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 that the tool runs a content domain agent action called 'plan_domain_intelligence', but it does not explain what this action accomplishes. The verb is clear but the resource/outcome is vague, and it does not differentiate from many similar siblings like 'commerce_plan_domain_intelligence' or 'crm_plan_domain_intelligence'.
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 when not to use it or how it compares to other content tools such as 'content_analyze_results' or 'content_chat'.
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 convey behavior. It only mentions routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company), but omits critical behavioral traits: what the action does, side effects, idempotency, error conditions, or return value.
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 (4 lines) and front-loaded with the action name. However, it could include more essential information without bloat; the second sentence about routing is somewhat redundant given typical API 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?
Despite having an output schema (indicated by context), the description does not explain the action's purpose or return behavior. For a domain agent action with two optional parameters, the description lacks completeness about what the tool achieves.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: message is 'Free-text objective', inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is minimal but provides some guidance beyond the parameter names.
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 tool runs the 'content domain agent action prepare_publish', which is a specific action name but does not clarify what this action accomplishes. The purpose is vague as it relies on domain jargon and does not distinguish from many sibling content_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given the large list of sibling tools, the absence of usage context makes it difficult for an agent to choose this tool correctly.
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 routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, or safety. It does not explain what the optimization does or whether it modifies data.
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 a single-line summary, routing context, and an Args list. It is not verbose, though the routing detail may be unnecessary. Structure is clear and front-loaded.
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 content_* tools and no output schema details, the description does not sufficiently differentiate this tool or explain its role. The behavior and return value are not contextualized, leaving an agent without enough information 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'Args' section clarifies that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds some meaning beyond the schema (which has no descriptions), but lacks specifics on expected format or content, so it provides only moderate value.
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 runs the 'seo_optimize' action via a domain agent, but does not explain what SEO optimization entails or what the actual outcome is. The name 'content_seo_optimize' implies optimization, but without specifics the purpose remains 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like content_seo_research, content_generate_content, or other content tools. There is no context for when to invoke this action or when to avoid 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is authentication context. However, it does not indicate whether the action is read-only or mutating, what its side effects are, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema is not referenced. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and uses a clear structure with a brief sentence followed by a bullet list for arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by including a clearer purpose statement before the technical routing 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 complexity of the tool (domain agent action runner) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the core purpose of the 'seo_research' action, leaving the agent without enough information to decide when to invoke this tool. The output schema is not mentioned, and the parameter descriptions are terse. The description fails to provide a complete picture for proper tool selection.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is helpful but minimal. It does not specify valid formats, examples, or constraints. The parameter semantics add some value but are not rich enough to fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 that the tool runs the 'seo_research' action of the content domain agent, which gives a verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'seo_research' actually does (e.g., keyword research, content analysis), leaving the agent to infer the purpose from the tool name alone. Among sibling content tools, this is distinct in running that specific action, but the description lacks a clear definition of the action's outcome.
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 only describes the mechanics of routing and parameters. There is no discussion of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must rely solely on the tool name and sibling list to understand its specific role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits side effects (e.g., does it modify contact data?), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The lack of behavior description leaves the agent in the dark about consequences.
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 short and front-loaded with the action name. It includes a brief routing note and parameter descriptions in a clear structure. While not verbose, it earns its place with no redundant information. However, it sacrifices detail for 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 of the tool (2 optional params, no enums) and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description should still explain what the tool does, when to use it, and what results to expect. It fails to cover these, especially compared to the many sibling CRM tools. The description feels incomplete for an agent to make informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding basic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain valid formats, constraints, or how these parameters affect the enrichment process. This is adequate but minimal.
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 tool runs the 'enrich_contact' domain agent action, indicating a verb-resource pair. However, it does not explain what 'enrich' means in this context (e.g., adding data, updating fields), nor does it distinguish this from sibling CRM tools like crm_enrich_leads or crm_lead_qualification. The purpose is clear at a high level 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context-specific scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient given the many sibling CRM 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing context and parameter types, leaving out critical information such as side effects (e.g., state changes, destructive potential, idempotency) and response behavior. The agent learns almost nothing about what happens when the tool is executed.
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 short, front-loaded with a clear header, and uses a bullet-style format for parameters. It avoids unnecessary verbosity while conveying the essential routing context. Slightly more structure could improve readability, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the tool's effect, return value, or prerequisites beyond routing. For a domain agent action, this is insufficient; the agent needs to understand the action's semantics and outcome to use it correctly.
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 description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: 'message' is described as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and helps the agent understand parameter usage.
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 runs a CRM domain agent action 'lead_narrative_advance' and routes through a dispatcher, but it does not clearly define what 'advance' means in this context (e.g., progressing a lead through a pipeline) nor differentiate it from siblings like 'crm_lead_narrative_load'. The purpose is vague, lacking 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only explains internal routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not indicate the appropriate context or scenarios for invocation, nor does it contrast with sibling 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, hinting at authentication requirements. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, what side effects occur, rate limits, or error behavior. For a domain agent action, critical behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short with two sentences plus an args list, no wasted words. The routing context is front-loaded after the purpose statement. It is concise, though it could be 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?
Given that the tool runs a domain agent action and has an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the action accomplishes, what the output contains, or how to handle errors. The presence of many sibling CRM tools increases the need for context to disambiguate usage, which is not provided.
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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates partially by explaining 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This adds meaning beyond types and defaults, but lacks examples or constraints (e.g., expected JSON structure). The explanation is minimal but functional.
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 'Run the crm domain agent action lead_narrative_load', which is largely a tautology of the tool name. It adds that it routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, but does not explain what 'lead_narrative_load' actually does (e.g., loads a narrative for a lead). The purpose is vaguely conveyed, and the tool is not distinguished from siblings like crm_lead_narrative_advance or crm_lead_qualification.
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 alternative CRM tools. The description mentions it runs under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is about authorization, not usage context. There is no indication of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or situations where another tool would be preferred.
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. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, mutation, or safety profile. For a domain action, significant behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and to the point, with clear separation of purpose and arguments. No unnecessary words, but could be 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?
Tool name suggests a specific CRM capability (objection handling), but description does not explain what this involves. Has output schema (not shown) but overall lacks the context needed for an agent to select it appropriately among many CRM tools.
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 has 0% description coverage; description adds minimal meaning: 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs. Better than nothing but lacks specificity about expected content or format.
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?
Description states it runs the CRM domain agent action 'objection_handling' but does not explain what objection handling is or how it differs from other CRM actions like crm_lead_qualification or crm_chat. The verb 'run' is generic.
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. Doesn't mention prerequisites or typical scenarios. The routing detail is about mechanics, not 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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions authentication context (JWT, tenant, company) but does not indicate whether the action is destructive, read-only, or its side effects. The technical routing detail adds little value.
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?
Short but includes unnecessary routing details ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher') that do not help the agent decide or use the tool. Could be more focused on the action's purpose and outcome.
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 two optional parameters, zero schema coverage, and an output schema, the description fails to explain return values or how to interpret results. Lacks completion for informed 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. 'message: Free-text objective' is generic; 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs' provides no structure or examples. Almost no additive meaning beyond the schema 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 states the tool runs the 'propose_meeting_slots' action, which is a specific verb-resource pairing. The name itself suggests the purpose, but the description does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like crm_book_meeting.
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, and no exclusions. The description merely states what it does without 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds some security context, but does not disclose whether the action modifies data, has side effects, or what the return value indicates. 'Run' implies execution but lacks behavioral detail.
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 a clear parameter list. It front-loads the action name and includes a brief explanation of the routing mechanism. No redundant sentences, though the purpose could be strengthened.
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 as a wrapper for a domain agent action, the description lacks explanation of what the agentic plan does, when to invoke it, and what to expect from the output (despite an output schema existing). The agent is left guessing the tool's value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. While better than nothing, the explanations are minimal and do not specify the expected format, constraints, or examples for the JSON inputs.
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 runs the customer_success domain agent action `cs_agentic_plan` using free-text objective, but does not explain what the plan does or its overall purpose. The tool is clearly a runner/dispatcher, but lacks specificity on the action's function, making it somewhat ambiguous for an agent to decide when to use it.
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 other customer_success tools. The description only describes how it works (routing through dispatcher) but not the context or prerequisites for invocation. Missing alternatives 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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the action is read-only, modifies state, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The mention of 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher' is an implementation detail, not a behavioral guarantee. The agent has little insight into the action's cost or 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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. The routing information in the second sentence is somewhat redundant for an MCP tool, but not overly verbose. Nearly every sentence adds some value, though the routing detail could be trimmed if it's standard for all tools in this domain.
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 an output schema, return value detail is not needed, but the description lacks context about the operation's behavior (e.g., is it long-running? Does it require previous research? What are the input constraints?). The two parameters are minimally described, leaving the agent to guess the proper use. Completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds basic context beyond the schema's names and defaults, but 'Free-text objective' is vague and does not specify expected content or format. 'inputs' could be more descriptive (e.g., expected structure).
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 identifies it as running the 'synthesize' action of the deep_research domain agent, which suggests combining information. However, it does not specify what the action produces (e.g., a summary, report, or insight), leaving the outcome ambiguous. The verb 'synthesize' is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like chat or query, but lacks concrete output description.
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 deep_research_chat or deep_research_research_query. The description only mentions routing details, which are generic to all domain agent tools. An agent would need to infer the usage context from the action 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?
With no annotations, the description must cover behavior. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, read-only status, rate limits, or output format. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged 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 concise with three sentences plus two parameter lines. It is front-loaded with the main action but could integrate the routing info more efficiently. No wasted sentences.
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 and sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the chat does (e.g., query document knowledge) or how it differs from other document_intelligence tools. Parameter descriptions are minimal.
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 the description partially compensates by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. However, these descriptions are generic and lack examples or formatting details.
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 runs a domain agent action 'chat' and routes through a dispatcher, but does not explicitly specify what the chat does (e.g., answering questions about documents). The purpose is implied by the tool name but not clearly defined.
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 coding_chat or other document_intelligence tools. The description provides no 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 carries the full burden. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, adding some auth context. However, it omits key behavioral traits such as failure modes, rate limits, data persistence, or output structure, 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 relatively short but includes technical routing details (domain-agent dispatcher, JWT, tenant, company) that add noise without aiding selection or invocation. The first sentence is somewhat tautological. It is not optimally concise for 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (not explained) and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not describe what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or how the domain agent action relates to the agent's workflow. Essential context for effective use is missing.
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 two parameters ('message' as free-text objective, 'inputs' as optional JSON string) but provides no details on expected format, examples, or constraints. The guidance is minimal and does not offset 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 states it runs the 'create_spreadsheet' domain agent action, making it clear the tool creates a spreadsheet. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'create_spreadsheet' or other document_intelligence tools, and the phrasing focuses more on the routing mechanism than the core 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_spreadsheet' or other document_intelligence tools. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent without decision context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects or permissions beyond JWT scope. It mentions routing but lacks behavioral details.
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?
Description is short and front-loaded with the action name. The routing detail is somewhat unnecessary but does not bloat significantly. Efficient overall.
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 (2 optional params, output schema exists but unmentioned), the description lacks details about what is returned, what content is searched, and how it differs from search tools. Not complete enough for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, but doesn't specify expected format or constraints. Adds some value but not comprehensive.
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 runs the domain agent action `grep_content` but does not explain what 'grep_content' actually does. It implies searching or retrieving content but lacks specifics. Given the tool name and siblings, it is somewhat clear but insufficient for full understanding.
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 'document_intelligence_search_documents' or 'grep_documents'. The description only covers routing and scope, not 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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under specific scope, which is helpful, but fails to describe whether the action is destructive, creates a new resource, or requires specific permissions. The word 'publish' implies a change, but no details are given.
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 five lines and avoids verbose language. It front-loads the main purpose, then provides routing context, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds information relevant to the agent's task.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. But the description fails to describe the action's effect (e.g., what 'publish' entails) or prerequisites. For a potentially mutative action with no annotations, the description is insufficient for full agent decision-making.
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 description explains the two parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema which only has defaults. However, it lacks examples or format details, and schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
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 runs the 'publish_document' action but does not clarify what publishing means (e.g., making a document publicly accessible, triggering a workflow). It distinguishes from similar document_intelligence tools by naming the action, but lacks a clear verb+resource explanation.
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 routing and authorization context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_intelligence_write_document or document_intelligence_update_document. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use hints.
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 partially covers behavioral traits by mentioning routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has any rate limits or side effects. Critical behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the mechanism (routing) and parameter intent. However, it sacrifices completeness for 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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values, but it fails to explain what kind of documents are searched, how results are structured, or common use cases. The tool's complexity and the many siblings demand more context than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the schema's default values and titles. However, the explanations are minimal and do not cover format or constraints.
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 runs a domain agent action named 'search_documents' but does not clearly explain what searching documents entails. It lacks a concise verb+resource statement and does not differentiate from sibling tools like the generic 'search_documents' tool.
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 'document_intelligence_chat' or the generic 'search_documents'. The description does not specify context, 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose behavioral traits like mutation effects, idempotency, or whether the action is interpreted by an AI. The 'message' parameter is described as 'free-text objective,' hinting at natural language processing, but this is not clearly 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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose statement and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to identify the target document (e.g., via message or inputs), what the expected outcome is, or the role of the domain agent. The existence of output schema is not leveraged, and critical information is missing.
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 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional structured inputs, which adds some context beyond the bare schema. However, descriptions are still vague (e.g., what constitutes a 'structured input' format) and do not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 runs the 'update_document' domain agent action, but does not specify what updating a document entails (e.g., modifies existing document content or metadata). The purpose is somewhat vague and relies on the action name, which could be clearer. It distinguishes from sibling create tools only implicitly.
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 document_intelligence_write_document or create tools. No prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring an existing document ID. The description only notes authentication routing, not 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; description only mentions routing through dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. Lacks disclosure of side effects, idempotency, or internal behavior. No contradiction.
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?
Four sentences, concise. First states purpose, then context, then parameters. Could front-load outcome more clearly.
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?
Output schema exists but description does not mention return values. Lacks business context on what the spec is or typical use. Incomplete for a creation tool.
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% but description adds that 'message' is free-text objective and 'inputs' is optional JSON string. Adds slight semantics beyond schema titles, but no further details on structure.
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?
Description states it runs the 'create_spec' engineering domain agent action, but does not define what a 'spec' is or differentiate from siblings like engineering_design_loop. Purpose 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. No prerequisites or context provided. The large sibling list offers no hints.
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 mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some auth context. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, what it returns, or any other behavioral traits beyond invocation. The existence of an output schema is noted but not described.
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 three short sections: purpose, routing context, and arguments. It is front-loaded with the main action. No extraneous words, though it could be more informative without being longer.
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 that the tool invokes a domain agent action, the description lacks context about the domain agent, what capital allocation analysis accomplishes, and expected outcomes. The output schema exists but is not elaborated. The description feels incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand when and how to effectively use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It adds that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This provides meaning beyond the schema's type and default, but lacks examples or constraints. Baseline is 3 due to coverage, and the description meets that minimally.
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 runs the finance domain agent action `capital_allocation_analysis`, which is a specific verb+action. However, it does not explain what capital allocation analysis entails, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `finance_capital_structure_cost_of_capital`. The purpose is minimally 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should or should not be used. Among many sibling finance tools, the description offers no comparative guidance.
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 it routes through a dispatcher. No mention of side effects, return values, or whether it is a long-running or blocking process.
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 short and front-loaded with the action name, followed by scope and args. It is concise but could be slightly tighter.
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?
The description lacks details about the tool's outcome, behavior, or tie to domain context. Even with an output schema, the agent cannot understand when or why to invoke this generic action wrapper.
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%, and the description adds minimal meaning: 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs. This is slightly better than the schema alone but still vague.
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 runs a finance domain agent action 'capital_allocation_loop', but does not explain what this action does. It vaguely identifies the resource and verb but lacks specificity to distinguish from other finance tools like finance_capital_allocation_analysis.
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 only mentions scope (JWT, tenant, company) which is generic across many tools, not specific to this action.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant scope. There is no indication of side effects, idempotency, read-only vs mutation, or response structure.
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 short and uses an Args bullet list. It is efficient, though the first sentence could more directly state the purpose. No redundant 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 complexity of a domain agent action with an output schema, the description omits critical context: what the action does, what the output contains, prerequisites, and how it integrates with the dispatcher. It feels incomplete.
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 the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, which is useful but lacks constraints, examples, or format details.
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 'Run the finance domain agent action collections_priority' which identifies the tool but does not clarify what collections priority entails or how it differs from many sibling finance tools. The verb 'Run' is generic and the resource is abstract, lacking 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 like finance_collections_to_crm_tasks or other finance actions. There is no mention of 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing via the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but omits critical details like side effects, return behavior, or async nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (4 lines) and front-loaded with the action name. No redundant information, but it is under-specified for a tool with no other documentation.
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 that likely performs a specific finance review, the description lacks detail on what it does, what inputs it expects, and what outputs it returns. An output schema exists but its content is not described.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meaning: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string'. However, no further constraints or examples are provided, limiting utility.
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 runs a domain agent action with the specific name 'finance_corporate_issuers_review', but does not elaborate on what that action does, leaving the purpose vague. Among many finance siblings, it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance_chat or other specific finance actions. It provides no 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with scope, but does not state whether the action is read-only, creates changes, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The behavioral profile is largely hidden.
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 at five sentences, front-loading the core purpose. The args list is clear. Minor improvement could be achieved by removing the generic first sentence.
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 schema coverage and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the attribution domain, what the action accomplishes, or how to use the inputs effectively. Output schema exists but is not referenced.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is helpful but vague, lacking constraints or examples to guide the agent.
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 'Runs the finance domain agent action finance_finops_attribution', providing a verb and resource, but is generic and does not distinguish from numerous sibling finance actions (e.g., finance_chat, finance_query_data). The title is null, and the name alone is not self-explanatory.
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. The description lacks context about use cases, exclusions, or preferences among siblings. 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions routing and authentication scope but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. Key behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action name. It uses a clear bullet format for arguments. While it could include more information, it wastes no 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?
Despite the tool's complexity (many sibling tools, no annotations, existing output schema), the description omits the tool's domain purpose, return values, and behavioral details. It is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and use this tool.
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 description adds basic semantics to the parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This clarifies their roles beyond the schema, but lacks examples or constraints. Given 0% schema coverage, this is adequate but not exemplary.
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 runs the finance domain agent action 'goal_plan,' but does not explain what 'goal_plan' accomplishes or how it differs from sibling tools like finance_goal_understand or finance_goal_replan. The purpose is technically clear but domain-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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other finance_goal_* tools). There is no context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario.
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 routing via domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but lacks disclosure of side effects, mutability, idempotency, or any safety considerations. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with a clear structure: summary line, routing context, then parameter list. No unnecessary words, though some important details are omitted.
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 an output schema being present, the description does not clarify what the tool returns. Given the complexity of the finance domain and many sibling tools, more context is needed for effective selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter descriptions are brief: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema but does not explain expected format or constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 runs the finance domain agent action 'grant_application_extraction', but does not specify what extraction entails or how it differs from many other finance tools, leaving purpose 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing via dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying authentication but nothing about side effects, mutability, or safety. The tool's behavior (e.g., read-only vs write) is completely 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 relatively short, but the first line is nearly redundant with the tool name. The routing details are boilerplate that may not be essential. No structural issues, but the content could be more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values are not required, but the description fails to explain the tool's core purpose beyond the name. It does not integrate with sibling context or provide enough information for correct selection. The agent likely needs additional context to 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameter intent. It explains message is 'free-text objective' and inputs is 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but does not specify expected structure, valid keys, or examples. This is only marginally more informative than the schema itself.
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 tool name 'finance_pricing_decomposition' suggests a specific finance action for pricing decomposition, and the description states it runs this domain agent action. However, the description does not elaborate on what the decomposition entails, leaving some ambiguity. The verb-run+resource is clear but lacks semantic depth.
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 the many other finance_* sibling tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses routing behavior but fails to mention side effects, permissions, or whether the action is read-only or mutating, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes, but the brevity sacrifices clarity, especially in explaining the tool's purpose.
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 and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the nature of the analysis (product-level finance), and the agent lacks context to differentiate from many similar sibling tools.
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 description explains message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify the expected JSON structure or constraints, providing only minimal value.
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 tool runs a specific domain agent action 'product_finance_analysis', providing a verb and resource. However, it does not explain what this analysis entails or how it differs from sibling tools like finance_project_finance_analysis, leaving the purpose 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?
The description mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is auth context, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, what permissions are required, or what the routing entails beyond a generic dispatch. The analysis nature suggests reading, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear opening sentence and key details in bullet points. No redundant content exists, making it efficient for scanning.
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 an output schema existing (but not shown), the description lacks information about the domain agent action 'project_finance_analysis', its purpose, or expected outcomes. The tool's role as a dispatcher is noted, but without domain knowledge, the agent cannot fully understand its use case among many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds brief parameter explanations: 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but the descriptions are generic and do not specify expected input structure or constraints.
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 'Run' and the resource 'project_finance_analysis', but does not differentiate this tool from similar finance siblings like 'finance_product_finance_analysis' or 'finance_project_valuation'. The tool's specific function is vague, described only as a 'domain agent action' with free-text objective, offering little 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?
The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying authentication context, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative context among the extensive sibling list 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 are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions auth/scoping but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, its side effects, rate limits, or output structure. This is insufficient for a mutation-like 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 short (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the verb 'Run'. No redundant information. Efficient but could be slightly more detailed.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks crucial context for a finance reconciliation sweep tool. No information about prerequisites, effects, or alternative tools. Agents would struggle to select this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds meaning: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides basic semantics but lacks detail on expected format or examples.
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 runs the 'finance_reconciliation_sweep' action and routes through a dispatcher, but it does not explain what the action does in business terms. The purpose is implied by the name but not clarified.
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 finance_reconciliation_exceptions. The description only discusses routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but no when-to-use 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?
The description mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or write, destructive consequences, side effects, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to provide adequate behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action name and routing details. The argument definitions are clear and concise. However, it could be improved by adding a brief example or outcome description without significantly increasing 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?
With no annotations and minimal description, the tool lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain return values (despite an output schema existing), intended use cases, or integration with other tools. Important gaps like prerequisites or expected behavior are missing.
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 compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON. However, it lacks details on acceptable formats, constraints, or examples, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 runs the finance domain agent action 'xero_ap_intake_to_pay', but does not explain what that action does. The name suggests AP intake to payment, but the description is a tautology that adds no functional clarity. It distinguishes itself from siblings only by name, not by description.
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 other Xero AP tools (e.g., xero_intake_bill, finance_xero_bank_reconciliation). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions routing and authentication details. It does not disclose whether the operation is safe, idempotent, paginated, or what happens when no payments exist. The behavioral characteristics beyond invocation 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 concise at 4 sentences but sacrifices informativeness. It is structured logically (name, routing, arguments) but does not earn its sentences with useful content for an AI 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?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it fails to reference it or provide any context about the data returned. The tool is simple, but the description lacks completeness for an agent to understand its scope and behavior.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning over the schema type. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to specify expected keys or structure, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.
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 tool name 'freshbooks_list_payments' clearly indicates the resource (payments) and action (list). The description identifies it as a Freshbooks connector operation for listing payments, distinguishing it from other Freshbooks list tools like 'freshbooks_list_clients' or 'freshbooks_list_invoices', though no further differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other list payments tools from different platforms (e.g., billcom_list_payments, stripe_list_payments) or alternative approaches. No context on filtering or prerequisites 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?
No annotations provided. The description is too brief to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or response format. It adds 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 extremely short (one sentence) but lacks sufficient detail. It is under-specified rather than appropriately 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 tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description does not provide enough context about usage, return values, or error conditions. It is incomplete.
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 what the 'decision_id' parameter represents (e.g., internal ID, format). The parameter name is vague.
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 'AutoCompany decision', implying retrieval of a specific decision by ID. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_aoc_decisions' which lists all decisions.
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 list_aoc_decisions. The description does not mention that one should first obtain a decision_id via listing.
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 only mentions routing infrastructure (JWT, tenant, scope). It does not indicate that the tool performs a mutation (creates a comment), nor does it explain the actual behavior or required inputs beyond the vague 'JSON string of arguments.'
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 relatively short and avoids verbosity, but it is not optimally structured for agent use. It begins with technical routing information rather than the core purpose, and could be reordered to front-load the functional description.
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 having an output schema and only one parameter, the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool. It fails to explain what arguments are required (e.g., issue identifier, comment body) or how to structure the JSON string, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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%, yet the description only repeats that 'arguments' is a JSON string without specifying its internal structure. This adds minimal value beyond the schema itself, leaving the agent without necessary details to construct valid arguments.
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 identifies the tool as a GitHub connector operation to create an issue comment, and includes the platform tool name for clarity. However, it does not explicitly state the purpose in plain language like 'Creates a comment on a GitHub issue,' and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like github_create_issue.
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, or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., issue number, repository context). The description focuses solely on internal routing details rather than 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 must carry the full burden. It only mentions routing through an API endpoint under JWT authentication, which is expected. There is no disclosure of behavior like destructiveness, idempotency, rate limits, 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 with two sentences, but the first sentence is redundant, and the second provides routing detail that may be unnecessary for an agent. It could be more concise and focused.
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 that creates a resource, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what arguments are expected in the JSON string, which is critical for correct invocation. The output schema exists but the description adds no context about the operation's purpose within the broader GitHub toolset.
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%. The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It does not describe required keys, format, or examples, so it fails to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions 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 states the tool creates a ruleset on GitHub, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explain what a GitHub ruleset is, relying on the user's prior knowledge. This is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like `github_list_rulesets`, but lacks depth.
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, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description simply states the operation name and routing details.
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 bears full responsibility. It mentions routing through `/api/tools/invoke` with JWT scope, but that is technical infrastructure, not behavioral. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, pagination behavior, or required permissions beyond the generic routing note.
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 includes unnecessary technical routing details that do not help the agent decide when or how to use the tool. The parameter description is generic. It could be more concise by focusing on purpose and expected arguments.
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?
Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the tool is a list operation that likely requires parameters like owner/repo. The description fails to specify that it lists alerts across repositories or a specific scope. It lacks essential context about prerequisites (e.g., GitHub Advanced Security) and does not communicate the scope of the listing.
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 single parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema description coverage. The description says it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds only that it's JSON. It does not explain what fields are expected (e.g., owner, repo, state), their formats, or constraints. This is insufficient for a parameter with no 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 names the operation 'list_secret_scanning_alerts', clearly indicating it lists GitHub secret scanning alerts. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like `github_list_code_scanning_alerts` or `github_list_dependabot_alerts`, which are similar list operations for different alert types.
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 this tool is specifically for secret scanning alerts, nor does it advise against using it for code scanning or Dependabot alerts. No usage context 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 are present, so the description must disclose behavior. It only provides routing details (JWT/tenant/company scope) but does not describe what happens during label removal, required 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?
The description is short but includes technical routing details that may not be helpful for an AI agent. It could be more concise and focused on functional 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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the name, what arguments are required, or what the output contains.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' Schema coverage is 0%, and description fails to specify the structure (e.g., needed fields like issue number, label name).
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 tool name 'remove_label_from_issue' clearly indicates a specific verb and resource. The description restates this but adds no further clarity or differentiation from sibling tools like 'add_labels_to_issue' or 'get_issue'.
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, when-not-to-use, or relation to other github 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?
The description mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether updates are immediate), or the structure of the arguments JSON. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency, and it does a poor job.
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 (two sentences plus an Args line), but the first sentence redundantly restates the name. It lacks a clear structure that front-loads key information. While not overly verbose, it could be more focused and 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 0% parameter coverage and absence of behavioral details, the description is radically incomplete. Although an output schema exists, the lack of parameter semantics and usage context leaves the agent with insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool. The context signals indicate low richness, and the description does not compensate.
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 a single parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds only that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which provides minimal semantics. It does not specify the expected structure or available fields, 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 verb 'update' and the resource 'release', indicating it modifies an existing GitHub release. It provides the tool name and identifies it as a GitHub connector operation, which specifies the platform. However, it does not elaborate on what aspects of the release can be updated (e.g., body, tag name, etc.), which limits clarity for an agent.
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 like github_create_release or github_list_releases. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Without usage context, an agent cannot determine if this tool is appropriate 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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and scope, but not what the action does (e.g., side effects, output destination, permissions needed). Critical behavioral context is missing, making the tool's behavior opaque.
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 short (three sentences plus args), front-loaded with the main action, and clearly structured. No wasted words, though additional necessary 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context about what an audit trail export is, why one would use it, or how it fits into the broader grc domain. It feels like a stub, leaving the agent with little understanding of the tool's role.
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 description adds minimal meaning to the schema by stating that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is optional JSON. With 0% schema coverage, this is helpful but insufficient to fully define the parameters' intended use or format.
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 tool runs a domain agent action for audit trail export and mentions routing under JWT scope. However, it fails to explain what an audit trail export actually does (e.g., export what data, to where, in what format). The purpose is present but vague, and doesn't differentiate well from sibling grc tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 over alternatives like grc_compliance_audit or grc_chat. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to prefer this tool. The description only states it's for running an action, without situational 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 provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the routing mechanism but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it creates audit records, modifies data, or is read-only). The action's impact and safety are ambiguous.
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 short (3 sentences plus arg list) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose with no fluff, making it easy to scan.
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 having an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description lacks critical context: what does a compliance audit entail? What are prerequisites or expected outcomes? The agent is left guessing the tool's actual function, making it incomplete for informed selection.
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 the description must compensate. It defines 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding basic meaning beyond schema names. However, it does not explain how to structure 'inputs' or constraints like maximum length, limiting utility.
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 runs the 'compliance_audit' action under the grc domain agent, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explain what compliance_audit actually does (e.g., checks compliance standards, generates reports), leaving the purpose vague. It also does not differentiate from sibling tools like grc_pci_audit_package or grc_sox_audit_package.
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 routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides context on authorization but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or sibling differentiation 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 are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses routing via domain-agent dispatcher but does not indicate side effects (e.g., data mutation, report generation) or any destructive potential. The agent cannot assess safety or 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 concise with two sentences and a bulleted arg list. No superfluous content. However, the first sentence repeats the tool name without adding value, costing a 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?
Given the complexity (many sibling GRC tools, obscure domain action), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the tool's output, side effects, or how it fits into a broader compliance workflow. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral gaps remain.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is minimal but adequate for a two-parameter tool. More detail on expected input formats or constraints would improve clarity.
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 runs the 'pci_audit_package' domain agent action, identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what a PCI audit package accomplishes (e.g., generate a compliance report), making it hard to distinguish from similar tools like grc_sox_audit_package.
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 other GRC tools. The description only mentions routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to specify prerequisites or 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 are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some context, but it fails to disclose whether the action is read-only or modifies data, what side effects occur, or what the return value contains. Critical behavioral traits 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 short and front-loaded with the main action. However, it includes a technical routing detail that may not be immediately useful for the agent. It is not overly verbose, but it could be more concise by omitting the dispatcher routing and focusing on functional 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's complexity (domain agent action), missing annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'scanning the risk register' entails, what triggers it, or what the output contains (despite an output schema existing). The agent lacks context to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 compensate. It provides one-line descriptions for both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. While this adds minimal meaning, it does not explain valid formats, constraints, or examples. The agent cannot reliably construct valid input without additional knowledge.
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 runs the 'risk_register_scan' domain agent action. The verb 'run' and specific resource name make the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling GRC tools like 'grc_risk_score_report' or 'grc_audit_trail_export', which could confuse an agent.
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 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions and does not mention any prerequisites or alternative tools. The agent is left to infer usage 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the action is destructive, read-only, or what side effects occur (e.g., creating records, triggering workflows). The routing note is insufficient for an agent to assess safety.
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 brief (two sentences plus a parameter list) and front-loads the primary purpose. No redundant or filler content 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 suggested by the tool name (SOX audit package) and the existence of an output schema, the description omits critical context such as what the action produces (e.g., a report, a package of documents) and how it fits into the SOX compliance workflow. The agent cannot gauge completeness without this information.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it lacks specifics such as expected content, structure, or constraints, limiting 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the action as 'Run the grc domain agent action `sox_udit_package`,' which conveys a specific verb and resource but fails to explain what the SOX audit package action actually accomplishes. Without context, the agent cannot distinguish it from other GRC actions like compliance audit or control testing.
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 grc_compliance_audit or grc_control_testing. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), which are not actionable selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions JWT, tenant, and company scope (authentication context) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, or produces side effects. The behavior of the underlying action remains opaque.
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 short (two sentences plus Args list), directly states the action, and front-loads the verb. Every sentence serves a purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 complex (domain agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant scope) and has an output schema, the description lacks details about return values, intended outcomes, and typical use cases. The parameter descriptions are insufficient for full understanding. Essential context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds needed meaning. It labels 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This is helpful but minimal; it does not specify expected format, constraints, or examples.
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 runs an HR domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence' and routes through a dispatcher. It specifies the domain (HR) and the action name, but does not explain what planning domain intelligence actually accomplishes. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity about the action's outcome.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other plan_domain_intelligence tools for different domains. The agent is left to infer usage context from the tool 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 exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides authentication context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or what side effects occur. The description lacks expected outcomes or behavioral expectations beyond 'run the 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 succinct: two sentences plus a bullet list for parameters. It front-loads the purpose and each part serves a function. While it could be even more concise, it respects the agent's time by being brief and structured.
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 nature as a domain agent action runner, the description lacks domain-specific context. It does not explain what 'close_packet' means in the Intuit ecosystem, leaving the agent to guess its applicability. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for missing usage context. The description feels incomplete for real-world decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for 'message' (free-text objective) and 'inputs' (optional JSON string). This adds some meaning beyond the schema's default values, but the descriptions are generic and do not specify valid formats or constraints. It partially compensates for the schema gap but is not comprehensive.
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 runs the intuit domain agent action 'close_packet', identifying the specific action. However, it does not explain what 'close_packet' actually accomplishes, making the purpose somewhat vague. Among many intuit_* siblings, the tool is differentiated only by the action name, but the lack of domain context 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. With numerous sibling tools like 'intuit_controller_action' or 'intuit_health_check', the absence of usage context is a significant gap.
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 mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher but does not indicate destructive potential, required permissions, cancellability, or output behavior. This leaves significant unknowns for a tool that runs an 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 short and front-loaded with the action name and routing info. Parameter bullet points are clear and efficient. No redundant phrases; each sentence adds 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?
The tool runs an autonomous consultation action, but the description omits expected outputs, side effects, or success/failure conditions. Though an output schema exists (not shown), the description should still provide high-level context on what the action returns or triggers, which it lacks.
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 the description adds minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is better than nothing but lacks constraints, examples, or formatting details needed for proper usage.
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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `autonomous_it_consultancy`', which is a clear verb-action pair, but lacks specifics on what the consultancy entails. The purpose is vague; the agent knows it executes an action but not what kind of consultation it performs.
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 like it_ops_analysis_review or it_ops_autonomous_delivery_loop. The description merely states it routes through a dispatcher, providing no context for proper 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose destructive potential, idempotency, side effects, or any other behavioral traits beyond the routing mechanism.
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 the key purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter documentation. It is appropriately short for a simple tool that runs a domain action, though additional context could be added 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the cloud_ops action does or what its output represents. The two parameters are minimally described, and the overall purpose is unclear, leaving the description incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by stating 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs', providing basic context beyond the schema's default and type fields. However, it lacks format expectations or examples, offering only minimal added value.
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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `cloud_ops`', which specifies the verb and resource, but does not explain what the cloud_ops action actually does. While it distinguishes from siblings by name, the purpose remains vague because the action's functionality is undefined.
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 other it_ops tools or alternatives, nor does it mention 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, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'passthrough' which implies a proxy or relay of data, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects occur (e.g., caching), authentication requirements, or rate limits. The behavioral impact is unclear.
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, which is concise and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. It earns its place by being succinct, but could be improved with more informative 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not hint at what the tool returns. For a tool with no input parameters, the return data is the primary value. The description omits any mention of what 'Live GitHub data' entails, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full capability.
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 no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds minimal meaning by specifying the tool is for the IT-Ops workspace, but does not explain any parameter details (there are none). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers everything.
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 'Live GitHub data passthrough for the IT-Ops workspace.' It indicates it provides real-time GitHub data but does not specify what type of data (e.g., issues, PRs, commits). The term 'passthrough' is vague and does not clearly convey the tool's action. It distinguishes itself by targeting the IT-Ops workspace, but the purpose remains 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other GitHub-related tools (e.g., github_list_issues, github_get_pull_request). There is no mention of alternative tools or when the tool is appropriate. The context signal of having many sibling GitHub tools suggests a need for differentiation, which is absent.
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 routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, whether writes occur, or expected outcomes. Critical behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is quite concise with only three sentences plus argument list. It front-loads the core action. No unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description provides no context about what the action returns or how to interpret results. For a domain agent action, more context about purpose and outcomes is needed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds brief meanings for both parameters: 'message' is free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON string. This is basic but provides some value beyond the schema. Could specify structure or constraints.
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 runs the 'it_ops domain agent action requirements_capture', which gives a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'requirements_capture' actually does or how it differs from similar sibling tools like it_ops_product_requirements_intake.
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 is silent on prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate invocation.
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 that the tool routes under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or other 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with an Args section, but it omits the core purpose of the action, making it less efficient than it could be.
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 output schema exists, return values may be documented there, but the description fails to explain what the 'testing_review' action actually does, leaving the agent without enough context to decide when to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description provides the only semantics. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON, which adds basic meaning but no format constraints or examples.
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 says it runs the 'testing_review' domain agent action but does not specify what this action entails (e.g., reviewing test plans, results, or something else). It distinguishes from siblings like 'it_ops_analysis_review' and 'it_ops_design_review' only by name, lacking functional 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternative tools or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical 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, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions JWT, tenant, and company scoping but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 short (three sentences) and includes parameter descriptions. It is not verbose, though the first sentence could be more informative about the action's goal. Overall, it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide enough context for correct invocation. It lacks explanation of the action's business function, expected return values, side effects, and how it differs from similar it_ops tools. The agent is left without key decision-making information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This provides some context but remains vague; e.g., no details on the expected JSON structure for inputs.
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 runs the 'triage_sdlc_intake' domain agent action and routes through a dispatcher. The purpose is clear in a technical sense but lacks a user-facing explanation of what the action actually does (e.g., triaging SDLC intake). This makes it moderately clear but not specific enough to fully inform the agent.
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 the many sibling tools (e.g., it_ops_chat, it_ops_analysis_review). The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool routes through a dispatcher, but does not describe whether the action is destructive, creates records, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. Critical behavioral context is missing for an agent to safely invoke this 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 short and includes an 'Args' section for parameters. It is front-loaded with the tool's primary function and avoids unnecessary verbosity. However, the placement of routing details could be better integrated to improve clarity.
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 (no annotations, vague purpose, many siblings) and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the tool's role in the SDLC intake process, when to prefer it over other it_ops_ tools, or what the output structure looks like. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides basic meaning for the two parameters: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds some semantics beyond the raw schema, but does not explain valid formats, constraints, or examples. It is minimal but useful.
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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `website_sdlc_intake`', which is essentially a tautology as it restates the tool name. It adds that it routes through a dispatcher but does not explain what the action actually does (e.g., create a request, process an intake). The purpose is vague and does not distinguish this tool from numerous sibling tools like it_ops_analysis_review or it_ops_product_requirements_intake.
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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. An agent has no basis to decide between this and similar it_ops_ intake 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 exist to cover safety profile. The description does not state that deletion is irreversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens to related data. For a delete operation, this is a significant omission. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but it includes some extraneous routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke under your JWT, tenant, and company scope.') that are not directly relevant to tool usage. The parameter description is minimal. Overall, it is concise but not optimally structured; it wastes space on routing info.
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 a delete operation, the description lacks critical information such as irreversible effects, required permissions, error scenarios, and return value details. Although an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or explain what the returns convey. The description is too sparse for an AI agent to use confidently.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema description coverage. The description only adds that it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal semantic value. It does not specify required keys, format, or examples. This is insufficient for proper 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 tool name and description clearly indicate it deletes a Jira issue, using verb 'delete_issue'. However, the description doesn't explicitly mention 'Jira issue' as the resource, relying on the name and the 'Jira connector operation' prefix. This is effective but slightly vague without the full resource 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., jira_transition_issue, jira_update_issue). No prerequisites, side effects, or when-not-to-use are mentioned. The description only provides routing details, which do not aid in tool 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, but it only mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke. It does not specify effects (e.g., irreversible deletion), required permissions, or side effects. Critical 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences but includes unnecessary routing details and lacks valuable content. It is front-loaded with the operation name but could be more efficient with user-facing guidance.
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 (delete operation, one parameter, no annotation), the description is incomplete. It omits essential context about the expected arguments structure and output, leaving the agent 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, but no details on required keys (e.g., webhook_id) or format. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds minimal meaning 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 it is for deleting a webhook in Jira, using the verb 'delete_webhook' and referencing the platform tool. It is distinct from sibling operations like jira_list_webhooks or jira_subscribe_webhook, but lacks any additional differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply describes the operation and routing without context on selection 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, the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and authentication scope but fails to disclose that the tool is read-only, what data is returned, or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not referenced 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short but contains redundancy (repeats the tool name and platform path). The 'Args' line is functional. Could be more concise and better structured.
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 siblings (`jira_list_projects`) and the output schema (not shown), the description lacks critical context: how to specify which project, what the response contains, and how it differs from listing projects. This incompleteness hinders effective agent 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?
The sole parameter `arguments` is described as a 'JSON string of arguments' but does not specify required keys (e.g., `projectKeyOrId`) or structure. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should fill the gap but fails to do so adequately.
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 it's a Jira operation to get a project, which is clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling `jira_list_projects` (which lists multiple projects) – both start with 'get_project' vs 'list_projects' but the description doesn't elaborate on the singular nature.
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 `jira_list_projects`, `jira_get_issue`, or other Jira tools. No prerequisites or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses routing behavior but does not indicate whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what the output contains. The existence of an output schema is not mentioned, failing 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with only three sentences and an argument list. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While it lacks structure, it earns a 4 for saying nothing unnecessary, though it could benefit from more organization.
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 absence of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema that is not described, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context about DSAR fulfillment, the expected output, or the overall process, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the two parameters ('Free-text objective for the action' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'), which is an improvement over the bare schema titles. However, with 0% schema coverage, it only partially compensates; more detail on expected formats or constraints would be beneficial.
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 'Run the legal domain agent action dsar_fulfill,' which provides a clear verb and resource but does not explain what 'dsar_fulfill' accomplishes (e.g., fulfilling a Data Subject Access Request). Without domain knowledge, its purpose is ambiguous, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like legal_dsar_intake.
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 routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT scope, but does not describe effects, side effects, or what the action does (e.g., initiates a process, creates a record). Behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.
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 short and to the point, with no wasted words. However, it could be restructured to front-load the core purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks critical context: it does not explain what dsar_intake accomplishes, when to invoke it, or how it fits into the legal workflow. For a tool in a specialized legal domain, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is basic clarification but does not specify format, constraints, or examples.
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?
Description states 'Run the legal domain agent action dsar_intake' but does not explain what 'dsar_intake' does. While the name suggests a Data Subject Access Request intake, the description lacks specificity, making it vague for distinguishing from siblings like legal_dsar_fulfill.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling legal tools (e.g., legal_dsar_fulfill, legal_matter_intake) are not referenced, leaving the agent without differentiation.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool routes through a dispatcher, but does not reveal side effects, read-only vs destructive nature, authentication specifics, rate limits, or error behaviors. This is insufficient for an agent to understand 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 concise, using only three sentences plus a brief parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the key action. However, the parameter descriptions are inline rather than structured, which slightly reduces clarity.
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 as a legal onboarding loop and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the purpose of the loop, expected inputs or outputs, or success criteria. The output schema exists but is not included, and the description does not compensate for this lack of context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It provides brief explanations: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds some value over the bare schema (which only shows type and default), but lacks details on expected format, examples, or constraints.
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 identifies the tool as running a specific legal domain agent action, but does not elaborate on what the action actually does beyond its name. It uses the verb 'Run' and provides the action name, but fails to distinguish it from similar sibling tools like legal_partnership_onboarding_loop or legal_vendor_onboarding_legal_loop.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not provide any when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. Among many sibling legal tools, an agent would not know when to pick this one.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies data, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence on routing is slightly extraneous but not overly verbose. It earns its place by providing auth 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?
The description does not explain what the tool returns or the nature of the output, despite an output schema being present. For an action that likely produces a digest or report, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the result. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.
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 description adds basic meaning to the parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This goes beyond the empty schema descriptions, but it lacks details on expected formats or examples. Given 0% schema coverage, the added value is moderate.
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 tool runs the 'horizon_digest' action, but it does not explain what that action does (e.g., digest legal horizon updates). The verb 'run' and resource are clear, but the purpose is vague without understanding the action's outcome.
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 other legal tools like legal_horizon_scan or legal_horizon_subscribe. The description does not provide context for appropriate usage or 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 are provided. The description mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, auth requirements beyond the generic scope, or any destructive behavior. Since annotations are absent, the description should provide more behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a parameter list, front-loaded with the main action. However, the parameter descriptions are brief and could be more structured.
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 (legal domain agent action) and the lack of output schema visibility, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return value, prerequisites, or the nature of the 'regulatory_horizon_to_policy_loop' action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds basic definitions for 'message' (free-text objective) and 'inputs' (optional JSON string), but does not provide further constraints, format examples, or compensation for the missing schema descriptions. This adds marginal value.
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 runs a specific legal domain agent action, but does not explain what the action does (e.g., monitoring regulations and converting to policy). The verb 'Run' is clear, but lacks differentiation from many legal sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 other legal tools. Only states to run the action, without 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 burden. It only mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not disclose if the action is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions.
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 plus a bullet list, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose. Could add more detail 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?
Adequate for a simple tool wrapper, but gaps remain: no description of what the action does, no mention of output (though output schema exists), no error cases or side effects.
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%, so description partially compensates by labeling 'message' and 'inputs'. However, 'free-text objective' and 'structured inputs' remain vague without format or constraints.
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 runs 'smokeball_account_sync' via the domain-agent dispatcher, but does not explain what this action does (e.g., syncing accounts). Among siblings like legal_smokeball_matter_operations, the purpose is unclear.
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 alternative smokeball tools (e.g., individual CRUD tools or legal_smokeball_orchestration). Missing when-not and 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 are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only mentions that the tool 'routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under your JWT, tenant, and company scope', implying authentication and scoping but not disclosing side effects, destructiveness, or data impact. Important behavioral traits (e.g., whether it creates or modifies records) 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with a clear lead sentence and a structured list of arguments. It is front-loaded and avoids extraneous information. However, the explanation of arguments could be more concise by integrating them into the narrative instead of a separate block.
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 legal domain and the presence of many sibling legal tools, the description lacks sufficient context. It does not explain the tool's role within legal workflows, what constitutes a valid 'message' or 'inputs', or the nature of the response (despite an output schema existing). An agent would struggle to decide when and how to invoke this tool effectively.
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 two parameters with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description adds 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This provides basic semantic meaning beyond the raw schema but is still generic and lacks format details or constraints (e.g., expected structure of inputs JSON).
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 'Run the legal domain agent action `subpoena_route`' and 'Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher', which clarifies that the tool dispatches a subpoena-related action. However, it does not explain what 'subpoena_route' specifically accomplishes in legal terms, and it does not differentiate from other legal domain tools like legal_breach_response or legal_dsar_fulfill. The purpose is clear but 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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternative legal tools, nor does it specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Without such guidance, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation 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, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it notes routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, it does not reveal whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any rate limits or safety considerations. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with two sentences for purpose and two lines for arguments. It is well-structured and easy to read, with no extraneous information. Could benefit from slightly more detail 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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it omits critical details about the tool's operation, such as what 'vendor_screen' does, what kind of free-text objective is expected, what structured inputs are valid, and how the action is dispatched. The description is too minimal to enable confident use without external knowledge.
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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. However, with 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be beneficial, such as the expected format for inputs or constraints on message length. The added value is modest.
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 runs the 'vendor_screen' domain agent action, which gives a basic idea of the tool's function. However, it does not explain what 'vendor_screen' entails, how it differs from other legal vendor tools like legal_vendor_onboard or legal_vendor_risk_score, or what the output is. The purpose is somewhat 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 its siblings or alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage. An agent has no context to decide between legal_vendor_screen and other legal vendor actions.
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 any behavioral traits beyond listing. There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention pagination, default ordering, or rate limits. The limit parameter implies pagination but is 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.
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 necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the key action, but the brevity results in under-specification.
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 two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the parameters effectively, such as how filtering by status works or how limit affects results. The presence of an output schema does not absolve the description from explaining invocation behavior.
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 compensate. It hints that 'status' can be 'pending' or 'resolved', but does not enumerate all possible values or explain the 'limit' parameter. The meaning of the default status (empty string) is not clarified.
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 a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'AutoCompany decisions' with a scope 'pending or resolved'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_aoc_decision' which retrieves a single decision. However, it does not clarify what constitutes a decision or how it differs from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'get_aoc_decision' suggest a one-directional choice, but the description offers no help in making that decision.
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 listing and optional scoping, failing to disclose pagination, rate limits, sorting, or behavior when run_id is empty.
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). While it wastes no words, it omits important details that a longer description could cover.
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 having an output schema, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on filtering behavior, pagination, error handling, and what happens when no run_id is provided.
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%, but the description adds little beyond mentioning that the tool can be scoped by run. The 'limit' parameter and its default are not explained.
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 the resource 'AutoCompany tasks', and mentions optional scoping by run. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_aoc_task_events' or 'get_aoc_task'.
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 only hint is optional scoping by run, but no when-not-to-use 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation (non-destructive), but fails to mention any state changes, limits, or side effects. The description is too brief to provide adequate 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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but lacks supporting 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 complexity of memory tools among many siblings and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the memory graph represents, how it relates to other memory tools, or 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.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'filtered subgraph' which hints at the 'focus' parameter, but does not clarify the meaning of 'depth' or how focus works. The description adds minimal value over 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 tool reads the memory graph, with verb 'Read' and resource 'memory graph'. It also mentions filtering to a subgraph, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling memory tools like memory_query or memory_search, which also read memory data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 compared to other memory tools (e.g., memory_search, memory_query). The description does not provide context, exclusions, or alternative tool names.
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 it lists events, implying a read operation. No disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or other 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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it lacks structure and additional detail to be fully 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 existence of an output schema, the description need not cover return values. However, it omits details about ordering, time range, or how the limit affects results, leaving significant gaps.
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 only parameter 'limit' is not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema's default value and type.
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 'memory events', and adds context with 'timeline of state changes', distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_list_entries. However, the exact differentiation between events and entries is not fully explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies historical context but does not state when not to use it or provide alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate that this is a read-only operation, what aggregation or filtering occurs, or any side effects. The routing details are not behavioral.
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 three sentences. The first identifies the operation, the second provides internal routing details (likely irrelevant for the agent), and the third describes the parameter. It is adequately sized but could be more focused on what the agent needs.
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 an output schema, the description should contextualize what is returned (e.g., list of drives with properties). It does not. Also, with no annotations and a generic wrapper parameter, the description is incomplete for effective tool 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?
The input schema has a single 'arguments' string parameter with no description. The explanation 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' adds minimal value and does not specify what arguments are expected (e.g., site ID, filters).
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 tool name 'list_sharepoint_drives' clearly indicates the verb (list) and resource (sharepoint drives), but the description does not elaborate on what a SharePoint drive is or how it differs from sibling tools like microsoft_list_drive_files or microsoft_list_sharepoint_sites. The purpose is implied but 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as microsoft_list_sharepoint_drive_items or microsoft_list_drive_files. There is no mention of prerequisites, scope, 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?
The description mentions routing through '/api/tools/invoke' under JWT/tenant/company scope, providing some authentication context. However, it does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or post-creation behavior. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but offers minimal disclosure.
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 short sentences and a parameter line. It is front-loaded but lacks substantive detail. While efficient, 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 tool's complexity (webhook creation typically requires board ID, URL, event type), the description is severely incomplete. No output schema details, prerequisites, or usage examples are provided, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no detail beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uninformed about required fields or format.
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 the verb 'create' and resource 'webhook', clearly indicating it creates a webhook in Monday. However, it does not elaborate on what a webhook is or its purpose, making it slightly less 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 alternatives like monday_list_webhooks or monday_delete_webhook. The description lacks context for agent 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 must convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which implies authentication and scoping, but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns paginated results, or what the typical response structure is. The actual behavior of listing users is not described beyond the 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 short (two paragraphs) and front-loads the operation name, but the routing and arguments sections could be more compact. The 'Args' line is redundant with the schema. It is not excessively verbose, but some sentences add little value (e.g., the routing detail is generic and likely applies to many tools).
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 one parameter and an output schema, the description should at least hint at the output (e.g., 'Returns a list of users'). It does not. The description lacks completeness for an agent to confidently use the tool without additional context. The presence of an output schema does not excuse missing high-level behavioral description.
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 a single 'arguments' parameter (type string, default '{}') with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely restates 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying what keys or values are expected. It adds no meaningful guidance beyond the schema itself.
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 repeats the tool name 'list_users' and identifies it as a Monday connector operation, which is clear enough to convey the basic purpose. However, it does not specify what subset of users is returned (e.g., all users in the account, only active users) or distinguish from sibling tools like monday_list_teams. The name itself is unambiguous, but the description adds minimal 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 other list tools (e.g., monday_list_boards, monday_list_items). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The description only states the operation name and routing details, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool 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?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/scope, which provides some auth context, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or what the action actually modifies. Key behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three sentences plus two parameter descriptions) and front-loaded with the action name. Every sentence provides some information, but the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name. Overall efficient with minimal waste.
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 likely complexity (bulk update in Notion) and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain core functionality like which properties can be updated, scope (single page vs multiple), or limitations. Contextually incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The descriptions 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string' add some meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, but are vague and lack format or constraint details. Insufficient for precise invocation.
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 runs the 'bulk_property_update' action but does not explain what that action does in Notion context. It is slightly better than a tautology and distinguishes from sibling tools like notion_bulk_status_update by name only, but fails to convey the actual 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other update tools (e.g., notion_update_page, notion_bulk_update_pages). The description lacks context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or 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 the description carries full burden. It mentions routing details but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements beyond the JWT/tenant/company scope, or output characteristics.
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 includes unnecessary routing details (e.g., '/api/tools/invoke'). It could be more concise by focusing on the tool's purpose and leaving out implementation specifics.
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?
An output schema exists, so return types are covered, but the description lacks explanation of what data source templates are and how this tool fits into the Notion ecosystem. An agent would not know when or why to use this 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 coverage is 0%. The description states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments but does not explain what those arguments are or provide any constraints or examples, adding minimal 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 states it lists data source templates for Notion, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'notion_list_data_sources' or 'notion_list_databases', leaving ambiguity about what 'data source templates' are.
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 lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke 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 the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions authentication routing but does not explain pagination, rate limits, error behavior, or output format. For a read operation, the description is insufficient. Score 2 for 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 three sentences, but the second sentence about routing is superfluous for agent decision-making. The first and third sentences are on-topic. It could be more concise by removing the routing detail. Score 3 for some unnecessary content, but overall not overly 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 single parameter and output schema presence, the description should clarify how to construct the arguments JSON. It does not provide enough guidance for effective invocation. The output schema compensates for return value explanation, but the input remains ambiguous. Score 2 for incomplete context regarding 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%, so the description must compensate. It says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds context that the parameter is a JSON wrapper but does not specify what keys or values are expected (e.g., filter, limit). This leaves the agent guessing about the required payload. Score 2 for adding only minimal meaning 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 it's a Notion connector operation 'list_webhooks', which clearly indicates the tool lists webhooks. The name and first sentence convey the purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar list tools (e.g., notion_list_users), but the unique resource 'webhooks' differentiates it. Score 4 for clear verb+resource, missing explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion_create_webhook or notion_delete_webhook. There is no context on prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The routing information is irrelevant for usage selection. Score 2 for lack of when-to-use or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool 'runs' an action, without describing side effects, destructiveness, or authorization needs. The behavioral traits are insufficiently communicated.
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 brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action and parameter types. However, it could be slightly more informative 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 tool's role in a planning system and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the expected outcome or scope of 'domain intelligence'. It lacks this context, leaving the tool's purpose incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, no examples or constraints are provided, limiting usefulness.
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 runs a 'notion domain agent action' called 'plan_domain_intelligence', distinguishing it from sibling tools in other domains. However, it does not clarify what 'plan_domain_intelligence' specifically does within the Notion context, leaving its purpose 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?
The description mentions routing through a dispatcher under user scope but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools for different domains, the lack of context for choosing this one is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. This is a significant gap for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with 3 short lines plus Args. It front-loads the main action and routing. However, the body could be more informative without becoming verbose. It earns its place but lacks depth.
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 optional parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to cover key aspects: what the tool actually searches, constraints on inputs, expected output (though output schema exists), and when to use it. The routing detail is useful but not sufficient.
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 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section provides basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds some value, but the descriptions are still vague (e.g., what kind of structured inputs are expected?). Compensates minimally for the schema gap.
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 runs the 'search_intelligent' action, but does not elaborate on what this action does (e.g., intelligently search Notion pages, databases, etc.). The name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little specificity. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like notion_search or notion_search_by_title.
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. The description does not mention any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. Without this, an agent cannot know if this is the appropriate search tool for a given scenario.
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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or what side effects occur (e.g., modifying backlog items). 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three sentences plus a bullet list) with no extraneous information. However, the bullet list merely restates parameter names and brief descriptions.
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?
Output schema exists but return values aren't explained. The tool's place among many Notion operations is unclear; no mention of required permissions, data scope, or typical usage patterns. Incomplete for a domain agent action.
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 the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs, which adds moderate value beyond the schema's type and default.
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 runs the 'triage_backlog' action via a domain-agent dispatcher, but does not explain what triaging a backlog entails (e.g., prioritizing items, status updates, etc.). Among many Notion sibling tools like notion_sprint_plan or notion_bulk_status_update, the specific function is unclear.
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 other Notion tools (e.g., notion_sprint_plan, notion_bulk_status_update). There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only notes that the action routes through a dispatcher, offering no insight into side effects, idempotency, permissions, or output characteristics. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.
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 brief with clear argument documentation. The three sentences are direct and contain no redundancy. However, the routing detail adds marginal value for decision-making, so a slight deduction is applied.
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?
The tool has an output schema that is not referenced in the description, and the concept of 'view_designer' remains unexplained. The two optional parameters are underspecified, and the description fails to convey the tool's role within the Notion domain, making it incomplete for agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's parameter explanations add some value. 'message' is described as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, but no format constraints or examples are provided, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 runs the 'view_designer' domain agent action, but it does not explain what the action accomplishes. The name 'view_designer' is ambiguous, and the description lacks specificity about the tool's output or effect, making it 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative Notion tools such as 'notion_create_view' or 'notion_get_view'. It only describes the routing infrastructure, not decision-making criteria, leaving the agent without 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Run the page-builder workspace automation' without detailing side effects, mutability, authorization requirements, or whether it is safe/idempotent. The agent gains no insight into what happens beyond the vague 'auto-wire'.
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 that immediately conveys the action. It is concise, but brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. A slightly longer description with parameter details would be more 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?
For a tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain what the automation does, what the input parameters are for, or what the output represents. The tool's complexity demands a more complete description to enable 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the two parameters (session_id, body) or their expected values. The agent has no understanding of what session_id represents or how to structure the body JSON. 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 'Run the page-builder workspace automation (auto-wire pages → agents → backend)' clearly states the verb (Run) and resource (page-builder workspace automation), and explains the purpose (auto-wire pages, agents, and backend). It distinguishes from sibling tools like page_builder_create by focusing on automation execution, but could be more specific about what 'auto-wire' 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., page_builder_chat, page_builder_deploy). The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 only states routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not specify whether the tool is read-only or destructive, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds information: action name, routing context, and parameter descriptions. No filler or 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. It also lacks prerequisites, error handling, or any indication of the assessment's nature. For a domain agent action, more contextual completeness is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The description adds basic semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This helps but could be more specific (e.g., what constitutes a valid objective, example inputs).
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 runs the 'vendor_risk_assessment' action, which implies the purpose of assessing vendor risk, but it does not explicitly state what the tool accomplishes or produces. The name and title suggest risk assessment, but the description is vague and tautological ('Run... action'). It distinguishes from siblings via the specific action 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 clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commerce_vendor_risk_assessment, legal_vendor_risk_score, or procurement_supplier_evaluation. The description mentions routing context (JWT, tenant, company) but no context on when it is appropriate or when to avoid 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 the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some authorization context, but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or return format. With an output schema present, the description misses the opportunity to clarify behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 7 lines, with a clear Args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, though some lines like the routing detail are included. Generally efficient without unnecessary text.
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 as a domain agent action and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'product_analysis' accomplishes, leaving the agent uncertain about its specific capabilities compared to many product-related siblings. The routing and parameter info does not suffice for a complete understanding.
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 the description must compensate. It provides basic parameter descriptions: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, but is minimal—no details on the expected structure or usage of 'inputs'.
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 'Run the product domain agent action product_analysis,' providing a verb and resource, but the purpose is vague—'product_analysis' is not elaborated. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'commerce_product_analysis' or 'product_chat'.
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 lacks any context-specific usage hints, exclusions, or when-not-to-use 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 disclose behavior. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not state side effects, mutability, or what the action actually does (e.g., creates, reads). Critical behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear structure: a brief purpose statement followed by an Args list. It is not verbose and avoids 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's complexity (running a domain agent action with free-text objective and JSON inputs), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what types of experiments are possible, expected input format, or prerequisites. An output schema exists but is not shared.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description bears the burden. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema. No examples or constraints are provided.
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 runs the 'experimentation' domain agent action, giving a verb and resource, but it does not clarify what experimentation entails (e.g., creating, analyzing, or managing experiments). There is a sibling tool 'product_experiment_design', but the description offers no 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 like 'product_experiment_design' or other product tools. The mention of routing through a dispatcher gives context but no usage criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which is generic. No disclosure of whether this is a read or write operation, side effects, or behavioral traits beyond scoping.
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?
Very concise, no filler. Two sentences plus parameter descriptions. However, 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.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, but description lacks essential context about what 'feature_adoption' does. For a domain agent action, the agent likely needs to know the purpose or outcome to decide to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds basic meaning but does not specify expected format or content for inputs.
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 tool runs the 'feature_adoption' product domain agent action, but does not explain what the action does beyond its name. 'Run the product domain agent action' is a tautology relative to the tool name. The verb 'Run' is clear, but the resource is not defined meaningfully.
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 sibling tools like product_analysis or product_chat. Does not mention prerequisites or context where this action 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it's a 'get' operation, implying read-only, but provides no details on required permissions, side effects, or how to specify the invoice (e.g., which ID is needed). The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. However, the second sentence about routing through '/api/tools/invoke' may be unnecessary for an AI agent, slightly reducing 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?
The description lacks critical context on how to use the 'arguments' parameter to specify which invoice to retrieve. Given the output schema exists, the return values are handled separately, but the input usage is under-specified, making the tool difficult to invoke 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 one parameter 'arguments' (JSON string) with 0% schema description coverage. The description only says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no meaningful guidance on required keys (e.g., InvoiceId). This fails to add 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 name and description clearly indicate this tool retrieves an invoice from QuickBooks ('get_invoice'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like quickbooks_list_invoices, which also retrieves invoices but in a list. The lack of differentiation prevents a score of 5.
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. The description does not mention when to prefer get_invoice over list_invoices or other get tools, nor does it specify 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?
No annotations provided. The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose read-only nature, authorization needs beyond JWT, rate limits, or whether it supports filtering/pagination. The agent gets little 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 short but includes some redundant phrasing (e.g., 'Quickbooks connector operation list_departments' and then the platform tool name). It could be more concise by omitting routing details that are likely standard for all tools.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what departments are, how to filter or paginate results, or what common parameters the JSON string should contain. For a list operation, this is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no description of its structure. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify possible keys, formats, or defaults. An agent cannot know how to construct valid arguments.
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 name 'quickbooks_list_departments' clearly indicates listing departments. The description repeats this and adds routing context. However, it does not differentiate from other QuickBooks list tools beyond the 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quickbooks_list_accounts or quickbooks_list_classes. It lacks any context about appropriate use cases 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 supplied, and the description only covers routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, idempotency, error behavior, or expected output format, which are important 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 short but includes redundant phrases (e.g., mentioning both names) and technical routing details that are arguably system-level and not needed for agent decision-making. It is acceptable but not optimally 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks critical information such as what constitutes a valid arguments JSON or what payment methods represent. The tool's context is incomplete for an agent to use it effectively without external knowledge of the QuickBooks API.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is documented as a JSON string but with no detail on required keys or valid values. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's type and default.
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 lists payment methods in QuickBooks, specifying the connector operation and routing. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other QuickBooks list tools (e.g., accounts, invoices) in the sibling list, so differentiation is missing.
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 prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits (e.g., what data is retrieved, pagination, side effects). It only provides routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not explain the actual behavior of listing purchases, such as whether it is read-only or what entities are returned.
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 succinct, but the first sentence is slightly redundant (repeating the name and platform tool). The routing information is placed upfront but could be integrated more efficiently. Overall, it is acceptable but not optimally structured.
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 QuickBooks and many sibling tools, the description lacks essential context. It does not explain what constitutes a 'purchase' in QuickBooks, nor does it describe the output even though an output schema exists. The agent is left with insufficient information to correctly use or interpret results.
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 compensate. It states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify what fields or structure the JSON should contain. This adds minimal meaning beyond the raw 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 identifies the tool as a QuickBooks connector for listing purchases, and the name 'list_purchases' clearly indicates its function. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like quickbooks_list_bills or quickbooks_list_invoices, which are similar listing operations for different entities.
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 other listing tools (e.g., quickbooks_list_bills). It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support for tool 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 carries full burden. It mentions routing via JWT and scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, auth prerequisites, error behavior, or rate limits. For a list tool, it fails to state it is a safe read operation.
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, but it lacks substance. While it contains no wasted words, it is overly minimal and does not provide enough information to be useful.
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 but missing annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the 'arguments' parameter, expected format, or any prerequisites. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral 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%, so description must compensate. The only parameter is 'arguments' described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. This adds minimal meaning; no structure, examples, or allowed keys are 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?
The description states 'Ramp connector operation list_receipts', clearly indicating the verb (list) and resource (receipts). The purpose is discernible, though no further context about what receipts are in Ramp is provided. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ramp_list_reimbursements and ramp_list_transactions by name alone.
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 given. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus its siblings (ramp_list_reimbursements, ramp_list_transactions), nor does it provide any context on appropriate scenarios or 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 are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not describe the actual effect (adding a reaction), potential side effects, permission requirements, or whether it is read-only or 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 but includes some redundant or technical details (e.g., the 'Routes through...' line) that are not directly useful for tool selection. It could be more structured and user-focused.
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 having an output schema (per context signals), the description does not mention return values or link to Slack API documentation. It lacks completeness for a tool that requires specific argument structure to function 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?
The only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no schema description. The description merely restates it as 'JSON string of arguments' without specifying required fields (e.g., channel, timestamp, reaction) or format. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.
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 tool name 'slack_add_reaction' clearly indicates adding a reaction in Slack. The description states it is a Slack connector operation, which is sufficient to convey the purpose, though it does not explicitly mention that it adds an emoji reaction to a message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like slack_remove_reaction or slack_list_reactions. It does not specify 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 are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only discloses routing and auth scope but omits critical details: whether the operation overwrites existing prompts, side effects, rate limits, or output structure. 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 concise (three sentences) but lacks substance. It is front-loaded with the operation name but does not earn its keep by providing meaningful guidance. Conciseness is not a virtue when it sacrifices necessary 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's mutation nature and lack of annotations, output schema is not shown but claimed to exist. The description does not explain what the tool does to the assistant, how to structure the arguments, or what to expect in the response. Incomplete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, and the description only states that 'arguments' is a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. It does not describe expected keys, format, or constraints. With one opaque parameter, more detail is needed to guide correct 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 states the tool sets suggested prompts for the Slack assistant. The name is self-explanatory, and the description adds routing context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling assistant tools like slack_assistant_set_status or slack_assistant_set_title, but the resource 'suggested prompts' is distinct enough.
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 prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons with other slack_assistant_set_* tools. The agent must infer usage 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the scope ('across channels the bot can see') but fails to explain authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens if query is null (default), or that the bot must be a member of channels for results. The description is too minimal to adequately inform an agent about behavioral nuances.
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, which is good for conciseness. However, the contradiction between 'required' and the schema's default null introduces confusion, and the structure in a docstring format is acceptable but not exemplary. It earns its place but wastes no 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 complexity of the tool (search across multiple channels) and the presence of many sibling search tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain whether the bot needs to be invited to channels, whether it searches public channels only, or how the results are returned (though an output schema exists). The agent is left with too many unanswered questions to use this tool reliably.
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 adds some meaning to parameters: it explains the 'query' supports operators like from:, in:, after:, before: and that 'count' is max results. However, there is a contradiction: the schema shows query with default null while the description says 'required'. Additionally, schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it fails to fully document both parameters, especially missing details on the null behavior.
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 'Search Slack messages across channels the bot can see', specifying the verb (search), resource (Slack messages), and scope (across channels the bot can see). This differentiates from sibling tools like slack_get_channel_history (single channel) and slack_list_channels (list channels). However, the presence of a sibling named 'slack_search' creates potential ambiguity, and the description does not directly distinguish itself from that tool.
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. It only implies that it searches across channels, but does not state when to prefer it over slack_get_channel_history, slack_search, or other search tools. No 'when not to use' or mention of prerequisites 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?
No annotations provided. The description mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope, but fails to disclose whether this is a read or write operation, side effects, or return behavior. The output schema exists but is not described.
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 short and to the point, consisting of three sentences with no fluff. However, it could be front-loaded with the tool's specific action rather than routing 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 complexity (multiple sibling smarthome tools, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output, when to use, or provide enough context for an agent to decide correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by calling 'message' a 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' an 'optional JSON string'. This is helpful but lacks detail on required structure or examples.
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 'Run the smarthome domain agent action `automation_review`' but does not explain what an automation review is or how it differs from sibling tools like smarthome_event_review. The purpose is vague and relies on internal jargon.
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 other smarthome tools (e.g., event_review, scene_assist). The description does not specify contexts or provide 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits side effects, read/write nature, or any constraints, leaving major behavioral aspects unknown.
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 and clearly formatted argument descriptions. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could be slightly more compact by removing redundancy about routing.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how it fits into the smarthome domain. Given numerous sibling smarthome tools, it leaves the agent with insufficient context to select or use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds basic semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This provides some meaning beyond the type/default, but does not fully compensate for missing schema descriptions, as it lacks details on valid content or structure.
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 specifies that the tool runs the 'event_review' action within the smarthome domain and routes through the dispatcher, but it does not explain what the action actually does, leaving the purpose vague and not clearly differentiated from other smarthome tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like smarthome_chat or smarthome_command_plan. It only describes the routing mechanism, not the context of 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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some authorization context. However, it does not disclose what the action does (e.g., side effects, data access, required permissions) beyond the vague name. No annotations exist to compensate.
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 short (two brief paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core action and routing context. However, it could be better structured by separating purpose, usage, and parameters more clearly.
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 having an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values), the description lacks completeness for a tool that is part of a broad pattern. It does not explain the overarching 'plan_domain_intelligence' concept or how this tool fits into the smarthome domain, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add value. It describes `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which is slightly more informative than the bare schema but still lacks detail on expected format or content.
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 runs a specific domain agent action and mentions routing through the dispatcher. However, it does not explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' actually does, and it does not distinguish this tool from the many similar `*_plan_domain_intelligence` siblings across other domains.
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. Given the large number of sibling tools with identical structure (e.g., coding_plan_domain_intelligence, finance_plan_domain_intelligence), the absence of selection criteria is a significant gap.
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 routing and authentication scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. With no annotations provided, this leaves the agent with minimal behavioral 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 concise with three sentences, but its brevity comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is front-loaded with the operation name, but every sentence could provide more 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for a create operation. It does not explain what a bill is, what fields are required or optional, or what the output represents. The overall context is lacking.
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 states that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string of arguments, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's type and default. However, with schema description coverage at 0%, this minimal information does not compensate for the lack of details on expected keys or 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 identifies the tool as the Smokeball connector operation `create_bill`, including its platform name. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling Smokeball create tools (e.g., create_contact, create_matter), leaving ambiguity about what a 'bill' specifically 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, intended scenarios, or situations 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions routing through an API endpoint. It omits whether creation is reversible, required permissions, error scenarios, and 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?
The description is short and readable, but it wastes space on technical routing details rather than essential functional information. It could be more front-loaded with purpose.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the output contains or how to interpret results. It lacks context on the matter creation process and how this tool fits among many similar smokeball tools.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. Given 0% schema description coverage, the description should specify expected keys or structure, 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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as creating a matter in Smokeball. However, it does not differentiate from other 'smokeball_create_*' tools like create_contact or create_task, limiting its distinctiveness.
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 smokeball_create_contact or clio_create_matter. Prerequisites, typical use cases, and conditions for use are absent.
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 behaviors. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not describe side effects, state changes, rate limits, or what the chat action actually does beyond being an 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?
Description is short (three sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. No fluff, though it could benefit from clearer separation between purpose and parameter docs.
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 an output schema and many sibling tools (including other domain chats and solver-specific tools), the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values or differentiate from alternatives, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON. However, explanations are terse and could be more specific about the expected structure of inputs.
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 runs a solver domain agent action 'chat', but does not specify what the solver domain does or what type of chat this is. It mentions routing details but lacks a clear purpose relative to other domain chats.
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 solver_chat versus other domain chats (e.g., finance_chat) or other solver tools (e.g., solver_solve_optimization). The agent is left to infer context from the name only.
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 lacks behavioral details such as pagination behavior, default limit, rate limits, or what happens if no email is given. The description adds no transparency beyond the 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 to the point, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure or organization, and the parameter list is awkwardly formatted.
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 that an output schema exists, description need not detail return values, but it omits important context like default limit, max limit, sorting, or that it lists all customers by default. Inadequate for a complete understanding.
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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds a brief line for 'email' but leaves 'limit' with no description. This partially compensates but 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 'List Stripe customers,' which is a specific verb and resource. The tool name also makes the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling stripe_list_* tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 stripe_list_invoices or stripe_list_charges. No context on filtering or selection criteria beyond the email parameter.
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. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, any side effects, rate limits, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds information, though routing details may be redundant if similar for all domain agent actions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Monte Carlo simulation tool, the description lacks essential context: what the simulation does, how to structure inputs, and what the output represents. Output schema exists but description does not reference or complement it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. But no details on valid values, format, or examples are provided.
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 runs a specific action ('wealth_monte_carlo_retirement') but provides no context about what that action involves (e.g., Monte Carlo simulation for retirement planning). It does not differentiate from other wealth advisory tools like wealth_portfolio_drift or wealth_retirement_withdrawal.
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 information on when to use this tool versus siblings, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The description only states what it does without guidance on appropriate 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Read', implying a safe operation, but omits details about permissions, rate limits, return format, or any side effects. The minimal information is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral implications.
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, front-loading the action. However, it is too brief and lacks structure to cover necessary details. It is minimal but not wasteful; it earns a 3 for being appropriately sized for its limited content.
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?
Considering the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a workspace surface is, what domain values are, or how the output relates. The agent would lack sufficient context to use this 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 add meaning. It provides one example for 'surface' ('internal_suite') but offers no description of 'domain', valid values, or format. This adds very little beyond the schema itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'domain workspace surface' with an example 'internal_suite'. This provides a clear understanding of what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like workspace_bundle or workspace_trace.
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. The description gives no context about prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions routing and authentication scope but does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any rate limits. The name suggests it fetches a report, but this is not explicit, leaving agents unaware of 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 with two sentences, but the first sentence restates the tool name and the second provides route context. It avoids fluff, yet the lack of parameter detail makes it feel insufficient. It is concise but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a report with unknown arguments) and the absence of parameter description, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists but does not excuse the lack of input guidance. The agent cannot determine how to use the tool effectively from this description alone.
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 only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal semantics. It does not explain the expected structure, keys, or formats, forcing the agent to guess or rely on external docs.
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 names the tool as 'aged_payable_report' and specifies it is a Xero connector operation. This clearly indicates the resource (aged payable report) and verb (report/retrieve), distinguishing it from sibling tools like xero_aged_receivable_report and quickbooks_aged_payable_report.
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 prerequisites, context for use, or situations to avoid. For instance, it does not differentiate from the similar xero_aged_receivable_report tool.
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 bears full responsibility. It adds routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but fails to disclose potential destructive effects, rate limits, or error behavior for malformed arguments.
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's identity. However, it is arguably too terse, sacrificing necessary detail for 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?
As a generic API request tool, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain the format of the arguments JSON, valid endpoints, or expected output. An output schema exists but is not shown; still, the description should offer more guidance for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description explains that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation. This adds basic meaning beyond the empty schema, but it lacks detail on required keys or allowed values.
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 identifies the tool as the Xero connector api_request and provides routing context, but the purpose is vague and generic. Among many specific Xero tools, it does not clarify that this is a generic fallback for unsupported 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 the many other Xero-specific tools. The description does not mention it as a fallback or state prerequisites such as valid endpoints or methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is somewhat behavioral, but fails to state that the operation is read-only, what side effects exist (likely none), or any rate limits. For a list tool, these omissions are notable.
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 (two sentences + one line) and front-loads the tool name. However, it includes unnecessary routing details (e.g., 'Routes through /api/tools/invoke') that an agent likely does not need. This detracts from conciseness and focus.
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 low complexity, zero schema coverage, and absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the output (though an output schema exists), pagination, or any special behavior. The agent lacks sufficient context for correct 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'arguments'. The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. It does not explain valid keys, formats, or provide examples, leaving the agent without guidance for constructing the parameter.
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 tool as a list operation for feed connections ('Xero connector operation list_feed_connections'). The verb 'list' and resource 'feed connections' are explicit, and the tool is distinct from siblings like xero_create_feed_connection and xero_delete_feed_connection. However, it does not explain what a feed connection is or what the output contains, slightly reducing 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many Xero list tools available, the lack of usage direction hinders correct 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 provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions routing and authentication but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. No details on rate limits, pagination, or result content beyond the bare fact of listing.
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 three sentences, but the second sentence about routing is technical and not universally useful. While brief, it could be more focused on the actual functionality. It is not egregiously long, but it lacks structure and prioritization.
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 having an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not explain what the tool returns. The input schema is minimal, and the description adds little context about how to use the arguments effectively. The tool is simple, but completeness is low due to missing output and usage details.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with default '{}'. The description repeats the parameter name without explaining what arguments are expected (e.g., filters, pagination). Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name.
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 this is a 'list_folders' operation for Xero, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'xero_list_files' or 'xero_list_accounts' by the resource type. However, it does not specify what kind of folders (e.g., document folders, accounting folders), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 mentions routing and authentication scope but not use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. Among many Xero list tools, there is no differentiation 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not address read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or idempotency. Minimal useful 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 short but includes redundant routing details (e.g., platform tool path, invoke endpoint) that are likely not useful for an agent. It front-loads the tool name and operation type, but could be more concise and actionable.
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 having an output schema (per context signals), the description does not help the agent understand what the tool returns or how to construct the arguments parameter. Missing context for effective 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?
The schema has one parameter 'arguments' (string, default '{}') with 0% schema description coverage. The description merely restates 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without explaining valid keys, filtering options, or expected format. Fails to compensate for lack of schema descriptions.
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 name 'xero_list_payroll_au_superfunds' clearly indicates a list operation for Xero Australian payroll super funds. The description confirms it's a connector operation, but does not explicitly differentiate it from other Xero list tools beyond the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, required permissions, or prerequisites (e.g., Australian payroll setup). The description lacks any context for appropriate invocation.
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?
Annotations are absent, and the description only notes routing and scope. It does not disclose important behavioral traits like read-only nature, data access limitations, or return format, forcing the agent to infer from 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and structured with a heading, routing line, and parameter block. However, it omits critical information, making it under-specified for effective tool usage.
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 and many sibling tools (e.g., xero_list_accounts, xero_list_invoices), the description lacks context such as what prepayments are, filtering capabilities, or output details. The agent cannot determine how to 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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful semantics beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool fails to explain expected JSON structure or keys.
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 explicitly states it is a 'list_prepayments' operation, clearly indicating the verb (list) and resource (prepayments). However, it does not differentiate from other list tools in Xero or define what a prepayment is, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as xero_list_invoices or other list operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, filters, or scenarios where this 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 disclose behavior. It mentions routing through JWT, tenant, and company scope, which hints at authentication needs, but does not state that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or safe. Key behavioral traits like rate limits, pagination, or error handling 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three short sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the tool's identity and routing. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it too brief to be fully useful.
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 an output schema being present, the description does not explain the project concept, filtering options, or how arguments are structured. For a simple list tool, it leaves critical gaps, especially around the ambiguous 'arguments' parameter.
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 only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a JSON string, but no details are given about valid keys or structure. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to add meaning to the parameter. The agent cannot construct correct arguments without external knowledge.
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 'projects' in the first sentence, indicating the tool lists Xero projects. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_invoices, leaving the agent to rely on the name alone. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling 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. There are no prerequisites, context for use, or exclusions. The agent receives no help in deciding between this and other list 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, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states it lists purchase orders and routing details, but omits idempotency, pagination, filtering, rate limits, or auth requirements beyond JWT/tenant scope. This is insufficient for a list operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes redundant repetition of the tool name and routing path. The bullet format for arguments is clear, but the information could be more compact while preserving utility.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description lacks crucial details for using the tool effectively, such as how to format the 'arguments' JSON or what filtering options are available. It does not provide enough context for an agent to invoke this 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema type. No specification of valid keys, filters, or expected format is provided. With 0% schema coverage, this is a significant 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 clearly states the tool lists purchase orders, using the verb 'list' and specifying 'Xero connector operation'. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'xero_get_purchase_order' or 'xero_create_purchase_order', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
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 vs alternatives. It mentions routing and scoping but lacks instructions on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Given siblings exist, explicit guidelines are missing.
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 behavior. It mentions routing and JWT/auth scope, but does not describe side effects (likely none), pagination, rate limits, or output format. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 contains a tautological first sentence and routing details that may be redundant. It could be more efficient and focus on actionable 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 no annotations, no schema description, and an output schema not described, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what time entries are, how to filter, or what the output contains.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', with schema coverage at 0%. No valid arguments, structure, or examples are given, 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 states 'Xero connector operation `list_time_entries`', which clearly indicates the tool lists time entries. It is a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_create_time_entry or xero_list_invoices.
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 prerequisites, filtering, or context for listing time entries.
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 only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but omits important behavioral traits like whether the operation is destructive, what changes are made, or what the response contains.
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 front-loaded with the tool name and routing info, but it sacrifices substance for 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?
While an output schema exists, the description is too minimal to guide correct usage. It does not specify what can be updated, constraints, or typical use cases, making it incomplete for a mutation 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?
The single 'arguments' parameter is described as a JSON string, but no information about its structure or required keys is provided. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it 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 name and description clearly indicate it is an update operation for expense claims, distinguishing it from create and list siblings. However, it lacks explicit details on what updating an expense claim involves.
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 xero_create_expense_claim or xero_list_expense_claims. Missing 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.
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 mentions routing through `/api/tools/invoke` under JWT/tenant/company scope, indicating authentication needs, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure for this creation 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 concise with three short sentences. It front-loads the identity of the tool and includes routing context. However, it could be 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?
Given the tool has no annotations and a single parameter with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the `create_payment` operation does, what the JSON arguments should contain, or what the output schema returns. An output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 only parameter `arguments` is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's title 'Arguments'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more detail about the expected keys and values in the JSON.
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 tool name 'create_payment' clearly indicates it creates a payment via Airwallex. The description references 'Airwallex connector operation `create_payment`' which reinforces the purpose but does not distinguish it from sibling list operations like `airwallex_list_balances`.
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 only states it's a connector operation and the routing, with no context on prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or when to use other Airwallex 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, pagination, rate limits, or data freshness. This leaves critical behavior undocumented.
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 (three sentences) and directly states the tool's identity. However, it is not front-loaded with the most critical information for an agent, and the structure could be improved by placing key usage hints earlier.
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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description still leaves significant gaps: no explanation of transaction scope, filtering options, output format, or any constraints. It is incomplete for effective agent 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?
The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but provides no details on structure, allowed keys, or defaults beyond '{}'. This adds minimal value over 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 lists transactions ('Airwallex connector operation list_transactions'), but does not differentiate from siblings like airwallex_list_balances or airwallex_list_payouts. The purpose is clear at a high level but lacks specificity about the scope of transactions.
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. The description does not mention any context or criteria for selecting this tool over siblings, leaving the agent without decision 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?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or side effects. The routing detail is not a behavioral trait.
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 short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's identity. However, the routing and auth details take precedence over core functionality, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
The description lacks completeness: it does not mention what the tool returns (list of vendors), any filtering capabilities, or how the output schema works. Despite having an output schema, the description should still outline expected results.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, which adds some meaning, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to specify expected keys or format, providing only minimal guidance.
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 'list_vendors' as the verb+resource, which is specific. However, it does not elaborate on what vendors are or the scope of listing, relying solely on the tool name for 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 alternative list tools (e.g., billcom_list_bills, billcom_list_payments). The description only mentions routing and authentication, not 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?
The description states the tool creates a contact but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements (beyond mentioning JWT routing), or rate limits. With no annotations present, the description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could be restructured to better highlight key usage details, but overall it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a create operation with a single opaque parameter and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits crucial details about the argument structure, required fields, return output, and behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to use independently.
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 sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning. The schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not specify the expected structure, required fields, or any constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information to correctly populate the parameter.
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 creates a contact via the Clio connector, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clio_list_contacts or clio_create_bill. However, it does not define what a contact is in Clio context, which could help an agent understand the resource being created.
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., clio_list_contacts, clio_get_contact). There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where creation 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not indicate read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description is insufficient to inform an agent about the tool's operational characteristics.
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 relatively concise at three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary routing context. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Clio connector operation' and 'platform tool' are similar), but overall it is not overly 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?
Despite having an output schema (stated in context), the description omits any mention of what the tool returns (e.g., a list of calendar objects). It lacks behavioral context such as read-only semantics or pagination. The description is too minimal for a listing operation, leaving critical gaps in an agent's understanding.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments, but the schema already defines it as a string with default '{}'. The description adds no detail about valid keys, expected structure, or constraints. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails to provide meaningful 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 clearly states that the tool lists calendars via the Clio connector. The verb 'list' and resource 'calendars' are unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools like 'clio_list_activities' or 'clio_list_bills', relying on the tool name alone for 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 versus alternatives. There is no context about prerequisites, expected input scenarios, or comparisons with other list tools. The description only gives routing details, not usage direction.
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 fails to disclose side effects (e.g., what happens to the turn when interrupted), required permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is too terse to inform an agent about behavioral implications.
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 with no wasted words. It uses a simple structure listing arguments. However, it could be improved by front-loading the action types and providing a clearer separation between the two possible actions.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is minimally informative. It lacks coverage of prerequisites, failure modes, or expected outcomes, 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.
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. It only explains 'action' and 'body' with brief examples. Three other parameters (workspace_id, thread_id, turn_id) are left completely unexplained, forcing the agent to infer their purpose 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to steer or interrupt a specific Codex turn. The verbs are specific and the resource is identified. However, it does not elaborate on what steering vs. interrupting entails beyond the example payload. Among siblings like 'code_workspace_codex_thread_action', the differentiation is hinted by the name but not explicitly clarified.
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 like 'code_workspace_codex_thread_action'. There is no explanation of when to steer vs. interrupt, nor any context about prerequisites or typical 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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as default role (viewer), expiration behavior for default 0 seconds, or whether the link is revocable. With no annotations, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary details, 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?
Given the lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the token's purpose, behavior, or return value, despite the tool having an output schema.
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 semantic value beyond parameter names. The 'role' and 'expires_in_seconds' parameters are not explained, leaving their meaning and effects unclear.
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 ('Create') and resource ('share-link token granting access to the workspace'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'code_workspace_revoke_share_link' and other code_workspace 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace ID) or scenarios where share links are appropriate, leaving the agent without contextual decision 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?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get the details', implying a read operation, but it does not confirm read-only behavior, mention permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. Minimal 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 sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks crucial details needed for correct tool invocation. While no fluff is present, the description does not earn its place because it omits important 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 two required parameters, an output schema exists, and many sibling tools are present, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'details' entail, does not help differentiate from similar tools, and does not reassure the agent about the parameters 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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the two parameters. The description adds no additional meaning; it does not explain what workspace_id or run_id represent or their expected formats. The parameter titles (Workspace Id, Run Id) are derived from the schema, but no further context is given.
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 the details for a specific coding run' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'details for a specific coding run'. It succinctly distinguishes this tool from siblings like code_workspace_get_active_run and code_workspace_runs.
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., code_workspace_runs for listing runs, code_workspace_get_active_run for the active run).
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 says 'apply' without explaining side effects (e.g., file modifications, reversibility, permissions). 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, but it is too brief given the tool's complexity. It could add essential 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?
The tool has an output schema but does not mention return values. Key context about side effects and expected behavior is missing, especially since no annotations are provided.
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 'workspace_id' or 'proposal_id'. An agent would have to infer their purpose from 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 identifies the action ('apply') and the resource ('code-change proposal to workspace files'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'reject' and 'list' proposals.
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 other proposal-related tools, or any prerequisites. The description does not help an agent decide when to invoke this tool.
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 'Open a GitHub pull request' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it pushes the branch, updates existing PRs, or requires a remote). The default body '{}' is unexplained and potentially confusing.
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 borders on under-specification. It is not verbose, but it could be improved with additional context without becoming 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too brief. It omits important details about the behavior and prerequisites (e.g., whether the workspace must have a remote branch configured). The overall completeness for a mutation tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no explanation for either parameter. 'workspace_id' is not described, and 'body' with default '{}' is left entirely to the agent's interpretation. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema parameter 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Open'), the resource ('a GitHub pull request'), and the context ('from the workspace branch'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_pull_request by specifying the workspace branch origin.
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 github_create_pull_request or other code_workspace tools. The description does not include when-not to use it or any 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List historical coding runs', implying a read-only operation, but omits details on pagination, ordering, error handling, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains 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?
For a simple listing tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what a 'coding run' is, what information is returned (despite an output schema), or any context about the response format.
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 (workspace_id, limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain either parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them 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 states 'List historical coding runs for a workspace', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'code_workspace_get_run' and 'code_workspace_get_active_run' by focusing on listing historical runs, 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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'code_workspace_get_run', 'code_workspace_get_active_run', or 'code_workspace_runs_insights'. The description offers no usage 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing via dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, mutation behavior, or what changes occur. This is a significant gap for a tool that presumably modifies strategy.
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 short, front-loaded with the action, and avoids unnecessary words. Each sentence adds information (action, routing, parameters), making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks crucial context: expected behavior, return value hints, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a domain agent action tool, this is 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It labels 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, but provides no format, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal value beyond 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 it runs the 'evolve_strategy' domain agent action in the content domain, with routing details. It is specific and distinguishes from siblings by referring to a unique action name. However, it does not explain what 'evolve strategy' entails, slightly reducing 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 alternative content tools (e.g., content_generate_plan, content_refine). Lacks any context about appropriate scenarios, 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (basic auth context) but does not indicate whether the action is read-only, destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The agent cannot assess safety or 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 concise with three sentences: purpose, routing context, and parameter definitions. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., breaking into sections) or include a brief example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is moderately complete for the mechanics but lacks semantic context about the full_campaign action. It does not explain the purpose of the action or expected outcomes, leaving gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not specify the expected format or structure of the JSON, and the schema coverage is 0%. The added value is modest, not comprehensive.
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 tool runs the 'full_campaign' action in the content domain, but does not explain what the action does or how it differs from other content tools. The verb 'Run' and resource 'content domain agent action full_campaign' are specific, but the purpose of the action remains ambiguous, leaving room for misuse.
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 alternative content tools such as content_generate_campaign or content_evolve_strategy. The description lacks any context about the appropriate circumstances for invoking full_campaign, making it hard for the agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not specify whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, what side effects occur, or what happens after generation. The term 'generate' implies creation, but more clarity 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (three sentences plus arg list) and to the point. Some routing details could be considered noise, but overall it does not waste 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not inform the user about expected output, error conditions, or detailed usage patterns. For a tool with 0% parameter description coverage and no annotations, more completeness is required.
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 only labels 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string', lacking examples, format constraints, or any detail beyond the parameter names themselves.
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 'Run' and identifies the resource 'generate_content' action. However, compared to many sibling content tools (e.g., content_generate_plan, content_generate_variants), it lacks specificity about what type of content is generated, making it harder to distinguish.
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 routing context but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other content generation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or explicit 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions authentication/authorization scope (JWT, tenant, company). It does not disclose whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or has side effects. The word 'refine' implies modification, but no confirmation is given.
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 very concise, with two short paragraphs that front-load the core purpose. Every sentence contributes meaningful information (mechanism, args), with no fluff or repetition.
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 simplicity (two optional params, output schema exists), the description is incomplete for decision-making. It fails to explain the action's outcome, how it compares to similar tools, or what the output represents. The agent cannot confidently select this tool over siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds meaning beyond the schema's default and title. However, it lacks specifics on the expected format or constraints.
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 runs the 'refine' action in the content domain, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explain what 'refine' actually does (e.g., refine content based on feedback?), leaving the purpose vague. It offers no differentiation from sibling tools like content_generate_content or content_repurpose.
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 other content tools. The description merely describes the mechanism (routing through dispatcher) without contextualizing the typical use case 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 present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Save the current state' but does not explain overwrite behavior, idempotency, session requirements, 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, concise but lacking structure. It is minimally acceptable but does not provide useful 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 two parameters and no output schema explanation, the description is too brief. It does not cover what 'body' does or what the result of saving is.
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 parameters. session_id and body are not explained at all.
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 'Save' and the resource 'current state of a document builder session', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like doc_builder_add_collaborator or doc_builder_get_messages.
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, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use information is provided. There is no guidance on how this tool relates to other doc_builder 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 provided. The description mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (authorization context) but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, error conditions, or output behavior. Minimal behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences plus two argument lines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids 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 presence of an output schema and optional parameters, the description does not explain the output, side effects, or what happens when no inputs are provided. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds basic semantics: 'Free-text objective for the action' for `message` and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for `inputs`. This provides partial meaning but lacks detail on expected format or constraints.
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 'Run the engineering domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`' which identifies the action but does not explain what `plan_domain_intelligence` does or what the output is. It vaguely conveys purpose but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like `coding_plan_domain_intelligence`.
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 other domain intelligence planning tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing and scope but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or whether the action is read-only or mutating.
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?
Concise and front-loaded with purpose. No redundant or unnecessary sentences, but brevity sacrifices critical 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?
Despite having an output schema, description does not mention return values. Missing behavioral traits and integration context for a tool that runs a domain action. Agent likely needs more to use 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?
With 0% schema coverage, description adds minimal: labels parameters as 'free-text objective' and 'optional JSON string' but provides no format, constraints, or examples. Agent cannot infer proper 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?
Description clearly states it runs a specific finance domain agent action, establishing verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings as a wrapper to a specific action, though the action's purpose is not detailed.
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 routing context but no exclusion criteria or 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, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error handling (e.g., task not found), or required permissions. The minimal description does not compensate for the lack of annotations.
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 it lacks important information. It is front-loaded with the essential action, but the brevity reduces its overall usefulness. It earns its place but is insufficient.
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 simplicity of the tool and the existence of an output schema, the description could be minimal, but it omits crucial context such as what data is returned, error scenarios, or that the output schema provides details. It is not complete for an agent to use confidently.
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 no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of 'task_id' or 'tenant_id'. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to fill these parameters correctly.
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 CRM task detail' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (CRM task detail). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_crm_task, update_crm_task, delete_crm_task, and list_crm_tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_crm_tasks or update_crm_task. It does not mention that it is for retrieving a single task by ID or any conditions 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 does not disclose the destructive nature of the operation, permission requirements, or behavior on non-existent refs. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden but fails to address behavioral traits beyond routing and auth scope.
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 (three sentences) and efficiently communicates the tool's identity and routing. However, it is too sparse to be fully informative, but that is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.
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 that this is a destructive GitHub operation, the description lacks essential context such as typical usage scenarios, error states (e.g., branch not found), or relationship with other GitHub tools. The existence of an output schema slightly mitigates the need for return value documentation, but overall the description is incomplete for an agent to use 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 single parameter 'arguments' is described only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', which adds no meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not specify expected keys or structure for the JSON, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct the input.
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 'delete_branch_ref' and identifies it as a GitHub connector operation, indicating it deletes a branch reference. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly 'branch ref' means and does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_create_branch_ref or github_get_branch.
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., github_create_branch_ref, github_get_branch). The description 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses auth/routing context but lacks behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., creating/modifying data), required permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon execution.
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 at 5 lines and front-loaded with the action name. It follows a clean docstring pattern. Could be slightly tighter but is already efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema but lacks explanation of what 'launch_readiness' returns. Given the domain-agent action nature and no annotations, the description does not sufficiently inform the agent about the tool's full behavior and output.
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%, requiring description to add meaning. The docstring restates parameter names and basic types ('Free-text objective', 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') but provides no examples, defaults beyond schema, format constraints, or usage hints.
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 'Run the gtm domain agent action launch_readiness', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this action from sibling tools like gtm_market_entry_analysis or gtm_competitive_launch_response, which could also be domain agent 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?
The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative gtm tools. No explicit context for when to invoke vs decline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of human-in-the-loop gating, which is critical for agent decision-making. However, it doesn't detail other behaviors like authorization needs or result format.
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 is highly concise and front-loaded with the core action. The parenthetical adds essential context efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a HITL-gated action, more context is needed about what triggers the human review, what the output signifies, and any follow-up steps. The description is too minimal for a tool that likely involves an approval workflow.
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 for parameters (application_id and body). The description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent to guess what 'body' contains.
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 (reject) and the target resource (Greenhouse application). The parenthetical '(HITL-gated)' distinguishes it from a direct reject sibling 'greenhouse_reject_application', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The HITL-gated hint implies human review is required, but it doesn't state alternatives or prerequisites for using this tool.
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. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying authentication. However, it does not state whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur (e.g., generating alerts or modifying state).
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 at four short sentences, with the main action stated first. It avoids unnecessary detail. However, a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing what the action does) would improve readability without adding 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 the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the monitoring_check action accomplishes, how the output is structured, or error scenarios. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's purpose and effects from this description alone.
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 adds terse explanations: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this clarifies the parameters somewhat, the descriptions are vague and do not specify expected formats, allowed values, or relationships between 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 explicitly states 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `monitoring_check`', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The name and description together indicate this tool executes a specific monitoring check action. However, it does not define what a 'monitoring_check' entails, leaving the agent uncertain about the action's general objective.
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 sibling tools such as it_ops_incident_response or it_ops_service_desk. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which gives some context about authorization, but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or has rate limits. The overall behavior beyond routing 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, readable, and well-structured. It starts with the primary purpose, explains the routing mechanism, and then lists the arguments. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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 that the tool has an output schema (though not shown), the description does not provide enough context about expected outcomes or return values. It also fails to elaborate on the action's effect, which for a complex domain tool like opening a PR should include success indicators or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding some meaning beyond the schema's default titles. However, it lacks specifics on what constitutes valid inputs or how they affect the action.
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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `open_iac_pr`', which is somewhat tautological. It clarifies it's a domain agent action and mentions routing, but does not explicitly state that it opens an Infrastructure as Code pull request, making it less specific than ideal. Sibling tools like 'it_ops_plan_iac' and 'it_ops_generate_iac' suggest this tool is for PR creation, but the description does not differentiate.
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, nor when not to use it. The description only mentions routing scope, which is not usage guidance. Given the many sibling tools, this omission makes it harder for an agent to select appropriately.
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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through the dispatcher and scope but does not describe side effects, idempotency, latency, error conditions, or return value behavior beyond the existence of an output schema.
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 (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The arg list is clear. However, the technical phrasing 'Run the legal domain agent action' could be more accessible.
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 an output schema existing, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the inputs map to expected outputs. For a domain-specific tool like tax compliance, the description is too sparse to fully inform an 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It labels 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, but lacks details on expected format, allowed keys, or constraints. This is minimal added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs the legal domain agent action 'tax_compliance_report', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what the report contains or how it differs from similar sibling tools like legal_tax_deadline_alerts or grc_tax_compliance_report.
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 many sibling tools (e.g., legal_tax_obligation_scan, legal_compliance_monitoring), and the description offers no 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Body is JSON' which is schema information, and fails to mention rate limits, authorization needs, destructive potential, or return behavior. The tool could be read-only or write; no clarity.
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 front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no extraneous information. However, it lacks structured sections like output hints or parameter details, which would improve usability 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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits details on the expected query format (e.g., keys like 'filters', 'time_windows', 'semantic') and the return value, despite the presence of an output schema. The agent is left to guess both input and output structures.
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 adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema. It says 'Body is JSON' but does not explain the expected structure, fields, or format of the JSON query. The user must infer how to compose the body, leading to potential errors.
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 'Run a structured memory query' with filters, time-windows, and semantic search, which conveys a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search (likely keyword-based) and memory_recall (likely by ID) by emphasizing structured querying, but does not explicitly differentiate.
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 vs alternatives such as memory_search or memory_recall. The description lacks context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to decide which tool fits.
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 claims 'to (required)' but the schema specifies anyOf [string, null] with default null, indicating it is optional. This is a contradiction. No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden, but it fails to disclose other behavioral traits like error handling, character limits, or attachment support.
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 includes a poorly formatted 'Args' section with an incomplete line for subject. It is concise but the structure is rough, and every sentence does not fully earn its place due to the missing 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 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the output schema (though one exists), error handling, or limitations like attachment support. The contradiction between description and schema further reduces completeness for an 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should add meaning. It identifies 'to' as required (inconsistent), and mentions subject, body, and cc, but body only says 'HTML body' without format details, and subject has no description. The comma-separated format for addresses is mentioned, but overall it adds minimal value 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 states 'Send an email from the connected Microsoft 365 mailbox,' which clearly identifies the verb (send), resource (email), and context (Microsoft 365). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_send_email and other Microsoft tools that perform different 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gmail_send_email) or when not to use it. Prerequisites, such as being connected to a Microsoft 365 mailbox, are implied but not stated. No exclusions or context for selecting this tool over others.
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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, idempotency, or any constraints. 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short (three lines of prose plus the args list). However, the first two sentences are somewhat repetitive ('run the action' and 'routes through the dispatcher') and could be merged. It is adequate but not maximally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the 'link_review' action does, what outcome to expect, or that an output schema exists. An agent cannot determine when or why to use this tool without external knowledge.
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 description adds clear meaning to both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. Since the schema itself has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions), this addition is valuable and helps the agent understand how to fill the parameters.
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 runs the 'link_review' action on the Notion domain agent, but never explains what 'link_review' actually does in business terms. It is clear that it invokes a specific action, but the purpose is vague compared to sibling tools like notion_query_database or notion_create_page which have explicit 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 provided on when to use this tool versus other Notion tools or domain agent actions. The description only says it routes through the dispatcher, but does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, indicating authentication context. However, it does not disclose side effects, data mutation, rate limits, or what happens to the system state.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter list is presented clearly. However, it 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?
Given the complexity of a domain agent action with free-text and optional JSON, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the action's behavior, expected output, or provide examples. Though an output schema exists, the description lacks sufficient context for effective tool selection and 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but lacks details on expected format, constraints, or examples. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid inputs.
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 runs the 'competitor_watchlist' action for the product domain, which distinguishes it from similar tools like 'commerce_competitor_watchlist'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings or describe the business purpose beyond the 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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling list includes a similar tool (commerce_competitor_watchlist) but no direction 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool routes through a dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, giving some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose destructive potential, rate limits, or success/failure 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 short but includes routing details that may be unnecessary. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the length is adequate, not excellent.
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 two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basics but omits what the action actually does, expected behavior, and when to use it. The output schema might describe return values, but context beyond parameters is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema's default values but lacks detail on format or examples.
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 'Run the product domain agent action experiment_design' which gives a specific verb and resource, but it doesn't clarify what experiment_design entails. It distinguishes from siblings only by naming the action, but without context on what it does, the clarity is limited.
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. With siblings like product_experimentation, the agent needs differentiation criteria, but the description provides none.
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 bears full responsibility. It mentions 'draft' but does not explain behavioral traits such as saving state, required permissions, side effects, or the format of the output (though an output schema exists but is not described). The description is insufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes a structured args list. It is concise but could be slightly improved by aligning with the schema and adding usage context. No extraneous 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 no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output, error handling, prerequisites, and the correct format for line_items. The mismatch between description and schema further degrades 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?
The description adds some meaning to parameters (e.g., 'QuickBooks customer ID' for customer_id, 'YYYY-MM-DD' format for due_date), but the schema coverage is 0%, so it must compensate. However, it incorrectly describes line_items as 'JSON-string list' while the schema expects an array of strings, creating a mismatch. The claimed required status contradicts 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 ('Create') and the resource ('draft QuickBooks invoice for a customer'). It implies the tool is for invoice creation, which differentiates it from other QuickBooks tools like list_invoices or create_bill, though no explicit distinction is made.
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., quickbooks_create_bill for bills, square_create_invoice for Square). The description contradicts the input schema by stating customer_id and line_items are required, while the schema marks them as optional with default null, potentially misleading the agent.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavioral details. It mentions routing and authentication scope but fails to disclose that deletion is irreversible, required permissions, or side effects. This is minimally informative.
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 (two sentences) and avoids verbosity, but the structure is suboptimal—routing details take precedence over functional clarity. It is concise but could be better organized.
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 Slack's API and the generic 'arguments' parameter, the description lacks crucial input structure details. The output schema exists but is not referenced. The description is incomplete for an agent to use 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 single parameter 'arguments' has 0% schema coverage. The description only says it's a 'JSON string of arguments' without specifying expected keys (e.g., channel, scheduled_message_id). This is a critical gap for proper 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 explicitly states it is for deleting a scheduled message in Slack, naming both the connector operation and platform tool. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like slack_delete_message (deletes regular messages) and slack_list_scheduled_messages (lists scheduled messages).
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, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The description is purely factual without 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses routing through /api/tools/invoke and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company), adding some behavioral context beyond the empty annotations. However, it omits details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or output behavior, which are needed for full 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 very short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with key routing info. However, the brevity sacrifices completeness, preventing a higher score.
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, 0% schema coverage, and the complexity of a Slack connector operation, the description is insufficient. It does not specify the expected format of the arguments JSON, output details, or necessary prerequisites, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 single parameter 'arguments' has no schema description, but the description explains it is a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' providing critical meaning. While the expected JSON structure is not detailed, this clarification is valuable and raises the score above baseline.
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?
The description merely restates the tool's name and mentions it's a 'Slack connector operation unfurl_link' without explaining what unfurling a link means or what the tool actually does. It lacks a clear verb and resource description, making it vague and tautological.
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 alternative Slack tools (e.g., slack_post_message, slack_search_messages). The description does not specify context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only mentions routing and the arguments parameter, lacking details on idempotency, error handling, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief with three sentences, no redundancy. However, the first sentence repeats the tool name, and the routing sentence could be omitted or merged. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool, critical details (required fields, constraints, default behavior) are missing. Although an output schema exists, the input semantics are insufficiently described, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but no specific fields or structure are documented. With 0% schema coverage, 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 clearly states it creates a time entry in Smokeball, mentioning the connector operation and platform tool. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not distinguish from sibling tools like clio_create_time_entry or xero_create_time_entry.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. The routing info is generic and does not help the agent decide between this and 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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not state if this is a read/write operation, required permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. This 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is 4 sentences, but the first sentence is somewhat redundant (stating the tool name twice). It includes operational routing details that may not be essential. Could be more concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, output schema present), the description provides minimal context. It explains the routing and scope but does not clarify how the returned URL is used or what the operation accomplishes beyond the name. The output schema may cover return values, but the description remains incomplete for usage 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?
The input schema has only one parameter ('arguments') with 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not explain what the arguments should contain, leaving the agent without necessary details to construct valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's operation (`get_file_upload_url`) and its Smokeball connector context. It also explains the routing and scope. However, it could be more explicit about the purpose (e.g., 'Gets a URL for uploading a file') and does not differentiate from siblings like `smokeball_get_file_download_url`.
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., `smokeball_get_file_download_url`, `smokeball_get_file`). It lacks context for selection, such as prerequisites or typical 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 mentions routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT, tenant, and company scope, indicating authentication requirements. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or disclose 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?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool name and operation. However, it 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?
The description does not explain what a 'layout' is, how this tool relates to siblings like 'get_layout_contacts', or what the output schema contains. For an agent to use it effectively, more context about the expected arguments and return value 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?
The only parameter, 'arguments', is described as a JSON string for the connector operation. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, which also shows it as a string. The description does not specify expected keys or structure, leaving a significant gap for agents.
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 is a 'get_layout' operation for Smokeball, but does not explain what a 'layout' is in this context. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'get_layout_contacts' by name, but lacks explicit clarification.
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., smokeball_get_layout_contacts). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions routing and JWT scope, omitting key traits like read-only, pagination, or rate limits. 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 very concise (two sentences) with no redundant information. However, it lacks structure and front-loads only the operation name without expanding on key aspects.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context about the tool's purpose, parameters, or behavior. A list tool without usage notes or parameter details is 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?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments, but no details on expected keys or structure are given. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds little semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists staff via the smokeball connector operation. However, it does not define what 'staff' means (e.g., users, employees) or differentiate from sibling tools like smokeball_list_contacts, leaving ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only provides routing details, no context on prerequisites or preferred 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 provided, so description must carry the burden. It only mentions routing and auth context (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not disclose destructive nature, side effects, or preconditions. Minimal behavioral insight.
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?
Description is short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the action name. However, it redundantly restates the name ('Xero connector operation create_bill...') which could be streamlined.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks domain context. It does not explain what a bill represents (accounts payable), what data is needed, or how it fits into the Xero ecosystem. The agent is left with minimal understanding of the tool's role.
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 should compensate. It only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' without specifying required fields or structure. The agent gains little understanding of how to invoke the tool 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?
Description clearly states it is a Xero connector operation to create a bill, with endpoint and scope info. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_create_invoice or billcom_create_bill, relying on the tool name alone.
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 exclusions are provided. The description does not help the agent decide between this and 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden. It only states routing info (through /api/tools/invoke under JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose what the operation does (creates a recurring invoice), side effects, permissions needed, or any limitations. The behavioral traits are not disclosed.
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 short and well-structured: operation name, routing context, then args section. However, it is somewhat redundant by repeating the operation name. Overall, it conveys necessary information concisely.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description is highly incomplete for a create operation. It does not explain what a repeating invoice is, what required fields go into the arguments JSON, or any constraints (e.g., customer must exist). The tool's complexity is not addressed.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema (type string). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what goes into that JSON, but it does not. The description is barely more helpful than the 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 tool creates a repeating invoice in Xero ('Xero connector operation create_repeating_invoice'), but it does not differentiate from similar tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_update_repeating_invoice. The verb and resource are clear, but sibling differentiation is missing.
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 only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) which are not usage guidelines. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information 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?
The description mentions routing details and scope requirements, which provides some behavioral context. However, it lacks information on pagination, default behavior, or error handling. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but addresses it only partially.
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 (three sentences) and avoids fluff, but it omits essential usage details. It earns a 3 for not being overly verbose, but the lack of critical information prevents a higher score.
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 output schema existing to describe return values, the description fails to explain how to provide input via the 'arguments' parameter. This is a significant gap for a tool with one parameter, making the description incomplete for practical 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 single parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string with no description in the schema or the tool description. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what keys or values are expected inside the JSON. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about how to invoke the tool 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 tool lists overpayments, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_payments or xero_list_credit_notes. The verb 'list' is appropriate and the resource 'overpayments' is 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 xero_list_payments or xero_list_credit_notes. There is no context on prerequisites or typical 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions routing (JWT, tenant, scope) but not whether the operation is read-only, returns paginated results, or any other behavioral traits. The description is insufficient for an agent to assess safety 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it sacrifices informational content for brevity, leaving out details that would fit in the same space.
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 a simple list operation with an output schema, the description should at least hint at parameter structure or pagination. It does not, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge of the Xero API.
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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' (JSON string) with 0% schema coverage. The description merely repeats 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no semantic meaning. It does not explain required keys, optional filters, 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 states it is a Xero connector operation to list payments, which is clear from the name and text. However, it does not elaborate on the scope (e.g., all payments, filtered) or differentiate from other list tools in the Xero family beyond the 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_create_payment or xero_list_invoices. There are no prerequisites, context hints, 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. The description notes the routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but omits critical details such as whether the update is destructive, what fields can be changed, or any side effects. 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 very short—two sentences plus an Args line—with no filler. It front-loads the tool's identity and purpose. While concise, it sacrifices substance; however, no unnecessary sentences are 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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not compensate for the missing parameter details. It fails to explain the return value or confirm the update's effect. The agent would need external documentation to 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 schema has one parameter 'arguments' with 0% description coverage. The description adds that it expects a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which clarifies the format but does not explain what valid arguments are, required keys, or constraints. The agent must guess the structure of the JSON, making correct invocation unlikely without external knowledge.
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 identifies the tool as an 'update_quote' operation for Xero, clearly specifying the resource (quote) and action (update). The name itself is descriptive, and the description adds the platform tool name. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like xero_create_quote or xero_list_quotes, missing an opportunity to clarify its unique role.
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 prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions that would make this tool appropriate (e.g., 'use to modify an existing quote, not to create a new one'). Agents must infer usage solely from the name.
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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic creation action without mentioning side effects, permissions, error handling, or idempotency. The tool name implies mutation (create), which is expected, but no additional context is given.
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, fitting in a few lines. However, the argument list contains an empty description for the 'description' parameter, which wastes space. The structure (Args list) is straightforward but could be more 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's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema present), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain optional/required nature correctly, omits return value details, and lacks examples or validation rules. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it.
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 description lists parameters with brief descriptions (e.g., 'Clio contact ID for the client'), providing some semantics. However, it incorrectly marks three parameters as required when the schema indicates none are required, and the 'description' parameter has an empty description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but with errors.
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 'Create a new Clio matter,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling update tools like clio_update_matter, but lacks explicit differentiation from other create tools such as clio_create_contact or clio_create_folder.
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., clio_create_contact for creating a client contact). There are no prerequisites or context about typical 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but lacks explicit statements on idempotency, side effects, or that it's a read-only operation. The agent cannot infer safety or other 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences and front-loads the purpose. It avoids unnecessary details but could be better structured with a clear purpose statement and parameter explanation.
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?
The description fails to mention essential context such as what identifies a custom action (e.g., ID), what the response contains (despite output schema existing), or any preconditions. For a 'get' operation, the agent lacks enough context to invoke it 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 only states 'arguments: JSON string of arguments' without specifying expected keys, value types, or constraints. The agent has no actionable information to construct parameters correctly.
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 retrieves a custom action, with the verb 'get' distinguishing it from create, delete, update, and list siblings. It also provides the platform tool name for additional 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 like clio_list_custom_actions or other get tools. The description does not specify the conditions for retrieval or prerequisites.
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 routing through /api/tools/invoke under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or any side effects. The routing info adds value but is not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, front-loaded with the tool name. No unnecessary words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices clarity, but it earns high marks for efficiency.
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 get tool, the description fails to explain how to identify the grant (e.g., by ID) or what the output contains. While an output schema exists, the agent still needs guidance on constructing the arguments JSON. The description is incomplete for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds a basic explanation beyond the schema (which has no description). However, it does not specify what keys or values are expected, so the coverage improvement is minimal.
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 'Clio connector operation get_grant' which indicates a retrieval action on a grant entity, but it does not define what a grant is in the Clio context. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly via the verb 'get', but lacks explicit differentiation from clio_list_grants.
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 mention that this is for retrieving a single grant (by ID) while clio_list_grants is for listing all grants. The agent is left to infer usage 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 provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses a destructive action but lacks details on reversibility, confirmation, or impact on related 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key action. Very concise, though it omits necessary details, it earns high marks for 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?
For a simple tool with 2 params and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to inform the agent about cancellation behavior, success criteria, or error 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 parameters beyond their self-evident names. No added meaning to workspace_id or run_id.
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 'Cancel an in-flight coding run' clearly states the verb (cancel) and resource (coding run), with 'in-flight' specifying the state, distinguishing it from get/list siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 code_workspace_get_run or code_workspace_runs. Missing context such as prerequisites or side effects.
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 the action without detailing side effects, permission requirements, idempotency, or behavior for invalid roles. The mutation nature is implied but not elaborated.
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 efficiently conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words, though it sacrifices completeness for 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 tool has three required parameters, no parameter descriptions, and no behavioral annotations, the description is insufficiently informative. An output schema exists but the description does not leverage or reference it. The agent lacks key details to use the tool 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% and the tool description adds no information about the three parameters. For example, the 'role' parameter lacks valid values or format. The agent gets no guidance on parameter semantics beyond their 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 'Change a collaborator's role.' uses a specific verb ('change') and clearly identifies the resource (collaborator's role). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'code_workspace_add_collaborator' and 'code_workspace_remove_collaborator' by focusing on role modification.
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 (add/remove collaborator). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or situations that warrant a role change versus other operations.
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 only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, auth requirements beyond scope, rate limits, or whether the action is read-only or mutating. The description gives minimal insight into 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but includes unnecessary infrastructure details about routing through the dispatcher. The first sentence establishes purpose, but the routing context adds noise without contributing to agent decision-making.
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 that is part of a large ecosystem with many siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the action does, return value, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. An output schema exists but is not described, and annotations are absent, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides basic meaning for both parameters: message is a free-text objective, inputs is an optional JSON string. However, no formatting or constraints are given, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 runs a specific domain agent action with the exact name. The name implies web development, and while it doesn't elaborate on the outcome, the verb 'Run the ... action' 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 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 compared to sibling tools like page_builder_create, coding_build_page, or other coding_* actions. The description lacks differentiation and 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 disclose behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether margin_analysis is read-only, modifies data, or has side effects. The routing detail is technical but not about 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 short but includes routing details that could be implied. It is front-loaded with the action name but does not fully earn its space; essential information about the tool's purpose is 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?
Despite an output schema (not shown), the description omits what margin_analysis actually does, its inputs' expected use, and the nature of the output. It is incomplete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds basic meaning but lacks format, constraints, or examples.
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 'Run' and the resource 'commerce domain agent action margin_analysis.' It identifies the specific action but does not differentiate it from numerous sibling commerce tools like commerce_assortment_gap_analysis or commerce_price_optimization_run.
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 only explains the routing mechanism under JWT/tenant/scope, not the conditions or context for selecting margin_analysis over other commerce actions.
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 provides some behavioral context by mentioning routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or mutability of the action beyond that.
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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses a clear bullet-point format for parameters. No unnecessary information, earning a high score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a domain action (procurement brief) and the existence of many sibling tools, the description lacks essential context: what the action does, when to invoke it, and what the structured inputs expect. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain what the tool returns.
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 description adds meaning to the two parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. While better than the schema alone (which has 0% description coverage), the semantics are vague and do not specify what the structured inputs should contain.
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 runs the commerce domain agent action 'procurement_brief', but does not explain what that action does or what a procurement brief accomplishes. This is clear but vague, and does not differentiate from sibling commerce tools like commerce_campaign_brief or commerce_sourcing_brief.
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, exclusions, or context about the appropriate use case for procurement_brief compared to other commerce tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not describe the action's effect, side effects, or what 'schedule' entails. The agent cannot anticipate outcomes like whether it creates a resource or triggers a process.
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 brief and structured with a one-line purpose, routing context, and parameter list. It is not verbose, but the first sentence could be more specific. Overall, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or the overall effect. For a tool with two optional parameters, it lacks critical context about the scheduling action's purpose and impact, making it incomplete for decision-making.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type and title. However, 'free-text objective' is somewhat vague.
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 runs the content domain agent action 'schedule', which indicates a scheduling operation. However, it does not specify what is being scheduled (e.g., content publishing, tasks, events). The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks precision.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or compare with sibling tools like content_generate_content or content_prepare_publish. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects, permissions required, destruction potential, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond routing. With no annotations, the description should carry the full burden but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three sentences) with no wasted words. However, it is too brief to convey necessary information. A more structured format with usage examples or parameter constraints would improve clarity without adding 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 the tool's apparent complexity (invoking a domain agent action), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (despite an output schema existing), error handling, or the action's behavior. The agent lacks context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds basic meaning: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. While this is helpful, it lacks examples, constraints, or expected keys, leaving parameters underspecified.
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 'Run the engineering domain agent action engineering_design_loop', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what the design loop actually does or differentiate it from sibling tools like engineering_chat or engineering_create_spec.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not state prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or how it compares to other engineering 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 exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only notes routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes. For an 'execute' action, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise at about 6 lines, though the routing sentence adds minor overhead. Information is front-loaded with the action 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits any mention of return values. It also fails to differentiate from many similar sibling tools, reducing completeness for an agent selecting among alternatives.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This goes beyond the schema's bare titles and types.
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 "Runs the finance domain agent action goal_execute_wave" but does not clarify what a 'wave' is or how this action differs from sibling tools like finance_goal_plan, finance_goal_record_task_result, etc. The purpose is 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other finance_goal_* tools. The description mentions routing but gives no exclusions 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, rate limits, or required permissions. The agent gains no behavioral insight.
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 purpose sentence + one argument line). It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly under-specified for a tool with no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and argument. However, it omits behavioral context that annotations would normally provide, making it minimally adequate.
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%. The description adds minimal meaning by describing 'artifact_id' as 'The artifact UUID,' but does not explain what an artifact is or how to obtain the UUID.
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 'Get the full content of a specific artifact,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_artifacts' by focusing on retrieving a single artifact's full content.
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 (e.g., list_artifacts, get_document). No context about prerequisites or scenarios 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 burden. It discloses routing through a dispatcher and auth scoping (JWT, tenant, company), adding some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on side effects, success/failure outcomes, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (three paragraphs) and front-loaded with the action name. It efficiently states the purpose, routing context, and parameters. No unnecessary sentences.
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 having an output schema, the description does not reference it or explain the action's outcomes. For a tool among many similar domain-specific siblings, more context about what 'domain intelligence' means for GRC is needed.
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 compensate. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding meaning beyond parameter names. This is helpful but minimal.
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 'Run' and resource 'grc domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence', but does not explain what the action accomplishes or how it differs from numerous sibling tools with the same name pattern.
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. Given many sibling tools with identical naming, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is absent.
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 carry the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope but discloses no behavioral traits such as read/write nature, side effects, or output characteristics. This is insufficient for safe 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 concise with no wasted words, but it is too brief for a tool that wraps a domain agent action. It would benefit from more context about the action and its expected use.
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 an output schema existing, the description does not mention what the tool returns or how the agent action behaves. Given the complexity of GRC domain and numerous sibling tools, the description is incomplete.
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 description adds basic meaning to parameters beyond the empty schema ('Free-text objective' for message, 'Optional JSON string' for inputs), but lacks depth on expected formats or typical values. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but remains minimal.
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 the tool runs the 'risk_score_report' action and mentions it accepts a free-text objective, making the purpose clear at a high level. However, it does not explain what a risk score report is, lacking differentiation from sibling tools like grc_risk_register_scan or grc_compliance_audit.
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. An agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for generating a risk report vs. other GRC tools without additional context about the risk_score_report action.
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 briefly mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not indicate whether the action has side effects, is read-only, or requires special permissions. Important behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for the action, one line for routing context, and a clear args list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the basic invocation and authorization. However, it omits what the market_entry_analysis action does and what the output represents. While the output schema could fill some gaps, the description alone is moderately complete for a domain-agent dispatcher.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the two parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but lacks details like expected format, examples, or constraints. It is adequate for simple parameters but not comprehensive.
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 runs the 'market_entry_analysis' action, but does not explain what this action does or how it differs from sibling GTM tools like gtm_go_to_market_plan or gtm_competitive_launch_response. The purpose is clear only in that it invokes a named action, but the action's function is left undefined.
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. The description does not specify the type of objectives suitable for market_entry_analysis or mention any 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope enforcement, but does not reveal whether the tool is destructive, creates or modifies data, or has 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three short sentences) and covers the essential dispatching mechanism. No redundant information, though it could be better structured with explicit headers.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's purpose within a hiring context. It does not describe the onboarding loop's steps or outcomes, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool accomplishes.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully fills the gap. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, adding meaningful context beyond the schema types and defaults.
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 that it runs the 'employee_hire_onboarding_loop' domain agent action, but does not explain what the action does (e.g., hire and onboard a new employee). It is somewhat distinguishable from siblings like 'hr_onboard' by name, 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 like 'hr_onboard' or 'hr_employee_offboarding_loop'. The description does not mention any 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?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or has side effects, missing critical behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and a parameter list, but it could be more front-loaded about the tool's core purpose.
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?
The description does not explain what analysis_review does, leaving the agent without enough context to decide when to invoke it. An output schema exists, but the purpose remains vague.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It defines 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding meaningful context beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
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 specifies it runs the 'analysis_review' domain agent action, but does not explain what that action does. It is not a tautology, but it lacks a clear verb+resource definition that distinguishes it from sibling tools like it_ops_analyze_cost.
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 when not to use it or which scenarios it fits.
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 behavioral traits. It only says 'data passthrough,' implying read-only data retrieval, but fails to mention authentication, rate limits, or whether data is live or cached. The output schema exists but is not described.
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 front-loads the key concept. It is efficient, but could benefit from a bit more context to improve usefulness 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?
Despite having an output schema (mitigating the need to explain return values), the description lacks completeness by not specifying what Slack data is passed through (e.g., messages, channels). No annotations exist to fill gaps, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 schema coverage is 100%. The description cannot add parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the absence of parameters makes this dimension less critical. The description is adequate.
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?
Description states it's a 'Live Slack data passthrough' for the IT-Ops workspace, indicating the resource and scope. However, the verb 'passthrough' is vague and not standard, failing to clearly specify whether it retrieves, forwards, or streams data. It is distinguishable from sibling it_ops_live_* tools by naming Slack.
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. While sibling it_ops_live_* tools suggest service-specific usage, no when/when-not criteria are provided. Many Slack-specific tools exist, but no differentiation is made.
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 discloses that the tool routes through a dispatcher, but it does not specify whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any authentication requirements beyond the implied JWT scope.
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 brief and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses two clear paragraphs and wastes no words. The parameter descriptions are inline and helpful.
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 an output schema, return values are not required. However, the description fails to explain what the compliance scan loop does, its typical use cases, or its relationship to the legal domain. Given the tool's complexity (domain agent action), the description is incomplete.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the bare parameter names.
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 'Run the legal domain agent action compliance_scan_loop.' It is specific about the verb and resource but does not explain what the compliance scan loop actually does, leaving its purpose ambiguous. It fails to distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like legal_compliance_monitoring.
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 routing through the dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses routing through domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scoping, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, and since annotations are absent, more behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core action. The 'Args' block is somewhat unnecessary formatting, but overall it is concise without excessive verbosity.
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 no annotations, an output schema (not described), and many sibling tools, the description lacks crucial context about return values, prerequisites, or how it fits among other legal vendor actions. It is incomplete for effective selection.
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 the description's parameter explanations add value: 'Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, the descriptions are minimal and lack examples or constraints, so only partial compensation.
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 runs the 'vendor_risk_score' action but does not explain what a vendor risk score is or what the action does. It is better than a pure tautology but still vague, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like legal_vendor_screen or legal_vendor_onboard.
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 context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to other vendor-related legal 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, and the description is too brief to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or return structure. The description fails to compensate for the absence of 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?
The description is extremely short with no extraneous text. While it is concise, it sacrifices critical information. However, conciseness is about efficiency, and this description is efficient but insufficient.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how it should be used. The context provided is minimal and does not help the agent use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers the interface. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline is high due to 100% schema coverage and no parameters needing explanation.
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 'Identity / personality projection of the agent,' which indicates the tool deals with the agent's identity. However, it is vague about what 'projection' entails and does not clearly differentiate from other memory-related sibling tools like 'memory_graph' or 'memory_list_identity'.
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 sibling tools, especially those related to memory and identity, there is no context for selection.
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 burden. It reveals authentication context (JWT, tenant, company scope) and that it's a connector operation. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. Partial 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 short (three sentences) but includes unnecessary routing details ('Routes through /api/tools/invoke'). It is not front-loaded with the most important purpose. Functionally concise but could be better structured to prioritize tool selection 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 is a listing operation, the description lacks information about output format, pagination, filtering, or sorting. An output schema exists but is not described. No examples or result shape are provided, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.
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 one parameter 'arguments' (string, JSON) with 0% schema description coverage. The description says it's a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but does not specify what arguments are valid or the expected structure. This leaves the agent guessing about required keys, default values, or optional 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 tool name and title clearly indicate it lists SharePoint sites. The description adds that it operates under JWT/tenant/company scope, clarifying the resource scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like microsoft_list_sharepoint_drives or microsoft_list_drive_files, which list related but distinct resources.
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 mention of prerequisites, common use cases, or when to prefer other SharePoint listing tools. The description only provides technical routing details, not usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes routing through an API path with JWT/tenant scope, implying authentication. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state if it is read-only or disclose any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.
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?
Three sentences are concise but lack structure. The description mixes operation identification, routing info, and parameter description without clear separation. It is not overly verbose but could be better organized.
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 one parameter and an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what the output contains or how to structure the arguments. It is incomplete for an agent without prior knowledge of the Monday API.
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 single 'arguments' parameter is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema; it does not specify valid keys, structure, or defaults. With 0% schema coverage, more detail is needed.
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 tool lists boards ('list_boards') with a verb and resource. However, it doesn't specify scope (all boards? user-specific?) or differentiate from siblings like monday_get_board.
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 alternative tools (e.g., monday_get_board for a single board, monday_search_items for searching). Does not 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?
No annotations provided. Description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description only states what it searches without behavioral details.
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?
Description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The args list is minimal but clear. Could be more structured but is 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?
Output schema exists, so return format is covered. But description lacks context on scope (only accessible pages), pagination, and sorting. 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 description coverage is 0%. Description adds meaning by listing filter_type values (page, database) and marking query as required, but the schema shows both parameters as optional with null defaults. This contradiction reduces reliability.
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 verb 'Search' and resource 'Notion pages and databases'. It distinguishes from generic search but not from sibling Notion search tools. The title is null, but the function name is clear.
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 notion_search_by_title or notion_search_intelligent. No context on prerequisites or scope limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or limitations of the underlying 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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently covers the routing mechanism and parameters in a few sentences, with no redundant 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the action returns or provide sufficient context about the domain action's scope. For an agent tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits critical details such as expected outcomes and when the action is applicable.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by labeling `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON. However, it does not explain expected JSON structure, constraints, or examples, which is insufficient to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 runs the procurement domain agent action `contract_to_pay`, which indicates it executes a specific action. However, it does not explain what the action does (e.g., converting contract to payment) and lacks differentiation from sibling tools like procurement_po_approval_workflow or commerce_contract_to_pay.
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. The description does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool 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 fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the loop phases and that aspects travel together, but fails to describe key behaviors: mutability, error handling, required permissions, idempotency, or side effects. The term 'governed' is vague without specifics.
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 at two sentences, front-loading the main action. Each sentence adds value, though the second sentence is slightly run-on. It efficiently conveys the tool's high-level purpose without fluff.
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 (13 parameters, output schema exists), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, input format, output expectations, or provide examples. For a tool orchestrating a full delivery loop, the description is inadequate for an agent to use it correctly without 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 description does not explain any of the 13 parameters in the input schema. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. Parameters like 'request', 'mode', 'repository', and 'extra_inputs' are undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and 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 runs a governed software loop from feedback to deploy, positioning it as a high-level orchestrator. It identifies specific resources (MCP, PR, deploy) and distinguishes itself as 'the main bridge for external coding tools,' though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'it_ops_software_engineering_loop.'
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when integrating external coding tools and mentions routing through an orchestrator, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., individual coding tools like 'coding_write_code' or orchestration tools like 'it_ops_software_engineering_loop'). No exclusions or criteria 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 only says 'Trigger a Xero data sync' without revealing whether this is synchronous or asynchronous, if it can overwrite data, or any rate limits. The behavioral impact is unspecified.
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 is concise and to the point. However, it could be structured into more detailed segments without losing conciseness. It earns its place but could be more 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 triggers a sync (a complex operation with potential side effects), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the sync process, expected inputs (body content), return values (despite an output schema existing), or prerequisites like authentication state. The agent lacks context to use it reliably.
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 one parameter 'body' with 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions). The tool description does not explain what the body parameter accepts (e.g., JSON keys for sync options). The description adds no value beyond the schema's basic structure.
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 triggers a Xero data sync and specifies the scope (orgs, AR/AP, payroll, ledger). This verb+resource combination is distinct among sibling tools, which focus on individual Xero operations, not a broad sync.
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 xero_agent_run_playbook or other Xero tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, sync frequency, or scenarios where this sync is appropriate.
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 contradicts the input schema by labeling bank_account_id as 'required' when the schema defines it as optional (nullable with default null). This is misleading and harmful. No other behavioral traits (pagination, filtering limitations, permissions) are disclosed.
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 relatively concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but the inclusion of a misleading 'required' label detracts from clarity. The structure (short sentence followed by Args list) is acceptable but could be tighter.
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 tool with an output schema, the description does not mention pagination, the scope of results, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. The optionality discrepancy further reduces completeness. It minimally covers the function.
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 description adds helpful parameter details (e.g., 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)') beyond the schema's minimal titles, but the incorrect 'required' label for bank_account_id undermines reliability. Schema coverage was 0%, so some value is added, but the error reduces the score.
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 bank-feed transactions on a Xero bank account,' specifying a concrete verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like xero_list_invoices or xero_list_payments by focusing on bank-feed transactions.
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 exclusions or context for choosing it over other list tools. The description lacks any 'use this when' or 'consider X instead' 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?
No annotations are available, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing details but fails to state whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. A listing tool likely requires read access, but this is not confirmed.
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 brief and front-loaded with the core function. It uses only three sentences to convey purpose, routing, and parameter hint. It could be more structured but remains efficient and to the point.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. However, the description lacks context about what contact groups are, how the 'arguments' parameter should be structured, and any prerequisites or side effects. It is minimally viable for a simple listing 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?
The schema has a single generic 'arguments' parameter (a JSON string) with 0% description coverage. The description merely restates this as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' adding no specific meaning or valid argument structure for listing contact groups.
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 lists contact groups via a Xero connector operation. It includes the platform tool name and routing path, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like xero_list_contacts, which list contacts rather than groups.
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., xero_list_contacts, xero_list_invoices). The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It fails to disclose side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what happens after approval.
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 waste. However, it is slightly under-specified; a bit more context could be added 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 tool's mutative nature, lack of annotations, and 3 parameters, the description provides minimal completeness. Output schema exists but does not excuse the need for better contextual coverage.
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 meaning to parameters execution_id, approval_task_id, or comments. The agent is left to infer their roles from 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 uses a specific verb 'approve' and resource 'pending in-call voice action', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like reject_voice_action and modify_voice_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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool deletes a custom action but does not mention if the deletion is permanent, any required permissions, or side effects. 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?
The description is short and to the point, but the first sentence redundantly restates the tool name. The 'Args' line is useful. Overall, it is efficient for its 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?
The description lacks essential context for correct invocation: no example arguments, no explanation of custom actions, and no output description despite an output schema existing. The agent would struggle to use this tool without prior knowledge.
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 single parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default. However, no details on expected JSON keys or structure are provided, leaving ambiguity. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
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 is a delete operation for custom actions, distinguishing it from create, update, get, and list siblings. However, it does not clarify what a 'custom action' is, relying on 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The only additional info is routing details (JWT, tenant, scope), which does not help the agent decide when to invoke 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state that this is a read-only, safe operation (no destructive effects). It doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or performance considerations. The routing detail is not behavioral.
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 short (three sentences). It front-loads the tool name and routing context, then introduces the parameter. It avoids unnecessary repetition. However, the routing detail could be omitted or placed elsewhere.
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 (list operation with an output schema), the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain scope (user/workspace?), typical use, or how it differs from other list tools. The output schema exists but the description adds no context about what to expect.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation.' This adds some meaning beyond the schema (which just says 'Arguments'), but it's still vague—no hint about what arguments are expected (e.g., filters, pagination). With 0% schema description coverage, more detail would be warranted.
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 lists grants (Clio connector operation `list_grants`). It distinguishes from siblings like clio_get_grant (single) and clio_create_grant (create). However, it doesn't explain what a 'grant' is in the Clio context, which is a minor gap.
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 over alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios, filtering, or when to prefer list_grants over search or get_grant. This absence makes it hard for an AI agent to decide appropriately.
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 behavioral traits such as destructive nature, idempotency, required permissions, or side effects. The name implies mutation, but details are lacking.
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 short and front-loaded with the tool name. It avoids fluff but repeats 'connector operation' and 'platform tool' redundantly. Still, it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.
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 an output schema existing, the description does not mention return values or behavior on update (e.g., error handling, required fields). It fails to provide a complete picture of what the tool does beyond its basic function.
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 description adds that 'arguments' is a JSON string for the connector operation, which clarifies its type and purpose beyond the schema's default string type. However, with 0% schema coverage, it does not describe expected keys or format, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 it updates a custom action via the Clio connector, and the name clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create, get, list, delete. However, it does not explain what a 'custom action' is or which attributes 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 like clio_create_custom_action or clio_list_custom_actions. The description only repeats the tool name and routing.
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 mentions preview_mode for non-mutating behavior, but does not disclose destructive potential, authorization needs, rate limits, or other side effects. The tool clearly mutates workspace state in normal mode, but this is implicit.
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 starts with a clear one-liner, but the Args section is verbose and lists all parameters in a block. Some sentences like 'propose_changes is normalized to preview chat mode for backend compatibility' could be more concise. Overall adequate but not tight.
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 16 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return values, pagination, or idempotency. While it covers the core interaction, it lacks completeness for a tool with many optional advanced parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds explanations for 6 of 16 parameters (e.g., action normalization, preview_mode, auto_push). However, many parameters like idempotency_key and agent_model_selection_id are left undocumented. The description provides partial improvement over the bare 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 'Send a message' and the resource 'code workspace', with specific actions like 'write code, run commands, analyze files'. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from general coding tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like code_workspace_claude_session_action or coding_chat.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., coding_chat, code_workspace_claude_session_action). The description only states what the tool does without explaining context 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 must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'list', implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, session state (active vs all), or response format. The output schema exists but is not described.
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 with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is front-loaded but too brief to be fully helpful.
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 list tool with one required param and an output schema, the description lacks usage context, parameter details, and behavioral notes. It is minimally adequate but 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the description to compensate. It only says 'associated with a workspace', which aligns with workspace_id, but adds no format, constraints, or usage hints beyond the schema's title.
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 ('List') and the resource ('Claude SDK sessions') with a specific scope ('associated with a workspace'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like code_workspace_claude_session_action (which implies actions on sessions) and other workspace list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 code_workspace_claude_session_action for performing actions on sessions. No prerequisites or exclusions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only lists actions but does not explain what happens during each action (e.g., irreversible changes, permission requirements), the effect on the thread, or any output format. The 'body' parameter is described as 'JSON object payload' with no structure guidance.
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, using two brief sentences and a bullet list to convey the purpose and parameters. It is well-structured with clear labeling of arguments, and every sentence adds essential information without unnecessary verbosity.
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 having an output schema, the description omits critical context needed for correct invocation, such as the required structure of the 'body' parameter, error scenarios, or how to get 'workspace_id' and 'thread_id'. The tool is part of a workspace context, but the description doesn't link to related tools (e.g., code_workspace_codex_threads for listing threads). An agent would struggle to form correct requests without additional knowledge.
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 0% description coverage, so the description's role is critical. It adds value by enumerating valid values for the 'action' parameter (rename, archive, unarchive, compact, rollback) which the schema lacks. However, it provides no additional details about 'workspace_id' or 'thread_id' (e.g., how to obtain them), and the 'body' parameter is minimally described as 'JSON object payload' without specifying required fields or examples.
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 'Perform a thread-level Codex action' and lists five specific actions (rename, archive, unarchive, compact, rollback), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like code_workspace_codex_turn_action by specifying 'thread-level'. However, the term 'Codex' is left undefined, slightly reducing clarity for agents without domain knowledge.
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 code_workspace_codex_turn_action or other workspace tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, conditions, or when the tool is inappropriate.
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 says 'Reject', leaving out side effects, irreversibility, authorization needs, or state changes. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with verb and resource.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks context about prerequisites, success/failure behavior, or idempotency. Insufficient for a mutation tool without annotations.
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 with no descriptions; 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Reject' and resource 'code-change proposal', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'code_workspace_proposal_apply'.
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, or prerequisites. Siblings like 'code_workspace_proposal_apply' exist but no 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'revoke access,' implying a destructive write operation, but fails to mention permanence, side effects (like notifications), or required permissions. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence. However, it could benefit from slight expansion without losing conciseness, e.g., mentioning the workspace context. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple operation.
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 required params, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits what the output represents, any prerequisites, or potential errors. Sibling tools indicate the domain (workspace collaboration), yet the description adds minimal value.
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?
Although parameter names (workspace_id, collaborator_id) are self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should have clarified parameter formats, sources, or constraints, but it does not.
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 'Revoke a collaborator's access' clearly states the verb (revoke) and resource (collaborator's access). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like code_workspace_add_collaborator and code_workspace_update_collaborator, 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 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., update_collaborator, deny_access_request). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing workspace admin permissions, and does not mention 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 provided, and the description only states it 'submit[s] a human review verdict'. It does not disclose what happens after submission, whether it triggers actions, if it can be undone, 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?
The description is a single sentence, no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and expected values, though it could benefit from a bit more 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 it is a mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema that is not used, the description should clarify the run's required state, the effect of feedback, and the return value. It is too minimal for a complex operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by listing the expected verdict values (accept | reject | request_changes). However, workspace_id, run_id, and feedback are not explained beyond their property 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 states the verb 'Submit' and resource 'human review verdict for a run', and lists the three possible verdict values. It is clear and specific, but does not differentiate from siblings like 'code_workspace_run_review_apply'.
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 whether it should be used before or after other review-related tools. No context about prerequisites or typical workflow.
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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not indicate whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The name 'build_page' suggests mutability, but this is not confirmed.
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 relatively concise with a clear Args section. However, the first sentence could be improved by front-loading the purpose rather than repeating the action name. Overall, it is efficient without unnecessary verbosity.
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 that there is an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about the purpose of 'build_page', what inputs are expected for the JSON, and any constraints or dependencies. This makes it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. However, it provides no examples, format constraints, or guidance on valid values, which limits its utility.
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 it runs the coding domain agent action 'build_page', which is clear but somewhat tautological. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like coding_build_codegraph or page_builder_create, but it does specify routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description simply states what the tool does without 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. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what happens when the action runs (e.g., asynchronous vs synchronous). Very limited behavioral context beyond the name.
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 (3 sentences plus args) and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose, though some structural improvements (e.g., clearer separation of usage vs parameters) could help.
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 an output schema existing, the description lacks context about what plan_domain_intelligence actually produces or how it fits into the broader domain agent workflow. The tool name implies a planning role but the description does not elaborate, leaving the agent with minimal understanding of its purpose and effects.
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 0% description coverage. The description adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. No examples, constraints, or expected formats are given. This is barely sufficient to understand what to pass.
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 identifies the verb ('Run') and the specific resource ('coding domain agent action plan_domain_intelligence'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming the domain as 'coding', while siblings like 'commerce_plan_domain_intelligence' or 'content_plan_domain_intelligence' are separate tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other coding domain tools (e.g., coding_chat, coding_explain_code). The description only states how it routes through the dispatcher, not the scenarios or prerequisites for invocation.
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 fails to disclose whether the action is destructive, what side effects occur, or what permissions are needed. The output schema exists but is not described. The tool likely modifies backlog order, yet this is not mentioned.
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 short and uses a clear Args section. The sentence about routing through the dispatcher adds minimal value for an AI agent, but overall it is reasonably concise with no unnecessary fluff.
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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the action and parameters. However, it lacks behavioral context (side effects, output summary) and detailed input constraints, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.
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 the description must add value. It explains `message` as a 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which provides some meaning beyond the schema. However, the expected format or keys for `inputs` are 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 clearly states 'Run the coding domain agent action `prioritize_backlog`', indicating a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from many sibling coding tools by naming the exact action, it does not explicitly differentiate from other coding actions like `coding_process_ticket`.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 `coding_process_ticket` or `coding_generate_tickets`. The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope), which are not usage guidelines.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT and scope, but with no annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, or what happens when a change is proposed (e.g., does it trigger a review?). Behavioral traits are largely opaque.
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, with a clear one-line purpose, authentication context, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text.
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?
The description lacks important context about the tool's output, expected behavior, and relationship to other tools. Given the existence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what is returned. The complexity of the tool is moderate, but the description is too sparse.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is better than nothing but still vague, lacking examples or format details.
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 runs the 'propose_changes' action in the coding domain, distinguishing it from other coding tools like coding_write_code or coding_explain_code. However, it does not elaborate on what 'propose_changes' actually does, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, which is critical given the large number of coding-related sibling 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 full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits critical details: whether the action is idempotent, what side effects occur (e.g., data modifications), error handling, or if it triggers async processes. The output schema is not referenced to clarify behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at five lines, with a clear 'Args' section separating parameter docs. The first sentence immediately states the action, but could be more informative. No unnecessary words, but the routing information could be secondary.
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 an output schema existing (not shown) and no annotations, the description fails to explain what 'catalog_sync' actually does. Given sibling tools like commerce_sync_history and commerce_sync_status, the agent cannot determine this tool's specific role. The description lacks purpose and outcome details, making it incomplete for effective selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It correctly notes 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, no examples, constraints, or format details are given, limiting usefulness.
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 'Run the commerce domain agent action `catalog_sync`', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what catalog_sync accomplishes in business terms, limiting differentiation from sibling tools like commerce_sync_status or commerce_sync_history.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. The agent is given no criteria for selecting this tool over other commerce sync 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses routing and scoping but does not reveal behavioral traits such as whether the chat retains history, triggers side effects, calls external APIs, or expects interactive responses. 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 concise with one routing sentence and a clear Args list. No redundant or excessive content. However, the routing sentence could be integrated into the main purpose statement for even tighter 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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to explain what the chat action does beyond 'run', such as whether it is conversational, what types of responses to expect, or how it interacts with other commerce tools. Incomplete for a chat tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on expected JSON structure or constraints for 'inputs'.
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 runs the commerce domain agent action 'chat', specifying the domain and action. It adds routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other domain chat tools (e.g., coding_chat, crm_chat), which weakens disambiguation.
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., commerce_converse, other domain chat tools). The description mentions scoping but does not help the agent decide when commerce_chat is appropriate. Lacks examples 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?
With no annotations, the description only partially covers behavioral traits by mentioning routing via the domain-agent dispatcher under authentication scopes. It fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, which is critical for safe invocation.
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 short and structured, with a clear purpose statement, routing context, and parameter list. No extra words, but the first line is slightly redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the parameters and routing but lacks detail on the action's intended effect and output content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates somewhat, though the explanations are brief.
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 runs the 'customer_profile' action via the domain agent dispatcher. It specifies a specific verb and resource, but does not elaborate on what the action does or how it differs from siblings like 'commerce_customer_360'.
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 alternative commerce tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid 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 carries full burden. It mentions routing and scope but omits key behavioral traits: side effects, idempotency, error handling, security requirements, or rate limits. The agent gets little insight into execution behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and to the point, with a clear header and bulleted args. It wastes no words, though additional context could be added 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the action actually accomplishes (e.g., segmenting customers by criteria). The agent cannot fully assess relevance without knowing the action's purpose.
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 the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is better than nothing but still vague—no examples or expected structure for the JSON string.
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 'Run' and the resource 'commerce domain agent action customer_segment', and explains the routing mechanism and scope. However, it does not define what 'customer_segment' actually does or distinguish it from sibling tools like product_customer_segment or commerce_customer_profile.
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 mentions scope constraints but fails to set expectations for appropriate usage scenarios 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only explains that the tool routes through a dispatcher and expects a free-text objective, but fails to describe what the demand forecast action actually does (e.g., computation, side effects, output structure). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with no superfluous content. It efficiently states the tool's purpose and argument usage. However, it could be slightly more informative without added bulk.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns, leaving agents uninformed about the output. The description also lacks detail on the action's purpose and expected effects, making it incomplete for a tool that executes a named action.
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 the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some context beyond the schema defaults. However, the descriptions are vague and do not specify the format or expected content of the inputs, limiting practical guidance.
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 'Run' and the resource 'demand_forecast', identifying the action. It also explains the routing scope. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like commerce_predict or commerce_forecasting, 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?
The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is 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 provided, and the description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope). It does not disclose whether the action is read-only, modifies data, or has side effects, which is critical for an action with no 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?
The description is concise, with a clear opening line and an Args section. It efficiently conveys the basic purpose and parameter meanings, though some technical routing details could be streamlined.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose and parameters adequately for a simple action, but it lacks details about the return value (despite an output schema being present) and any preconditions or effects, making it minimally complete for complex usage.
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 description adds meaning to both parameters: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' Since the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), this clarifies their purpose beyond the bare schema definitions.
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 runs the 'inventory_check' commerce domain agent action, but does not define what inventory check entails (e.g., checking stock levels, availability). It lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like commerce_inventory_valuation or commerce_catalog_sync.
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, appropriate scenarios, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer 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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and authentication scope, but does not disclose what the action actually does (e.g., creates an invoice), whether it is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a mutating 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 short with three sentences including the Args section. It front-loads the action name and key routing behavior. Each sentence adds value, though the routing sentence might be slightly tangential for selection but relevant for execution.
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 that the tool has 2 optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema that is not described, the description should cover the return value and side effects. It only vaguely covers purpose and parameters, leaving behavioral and output aspects incomplete. The agent would not know what to expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks detail on expected format, constraints, or examples.
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 'Run' and identifies the resource as 'order_to_invoice', which together with the tool name clearly implies converting an order to an invoice. However, it is somewhat tautological as it only says to run the action without explaining what the action does, relying on the name for full 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. Among many commerce sibling tools, the description does not specify context, prerequisites, or conditions for use. The only context given is about authentication scope ('under your JWT, tenant, and company scope'), which does not help in selecting this tool over others.
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 transparency. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, idempotent, reversible, or what side effects occur (e.g., data changes, external API calls).
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 (about 5 lines) and front-loads the action name. It includes relevant routing context, though the technical detail about the dispatcher may not be essential for an AI agent. Overall, it is economical and readable.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain what the tool returns or what constitutes success/failure. In a complex tool with many siblings, more context about the personalization action's purpose and outcomes is needed for the agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. Since schema coverage is 0%, some added value exists, but the descriptions are vague and do not clarify expected formats, constraints, or examples.
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 runs the 'personalize_campaign' action in the commerce domain, and provides routing context (JWT, tenant, company). However, it does not distinguish this tool from similar commerce tools like commerce_campaign_brief or commerce_ab_test, which may also involve campaign-related 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not to use, or recommended scenarios. The description simply states what it does 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says it runs a domain agent action and routes through a dispatcher. It does not disclose what the action does, whether it is destructive, requires permissions, or has other 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes an Args section. It is efficient with no extraneous text, though it could be more informative without being longer.
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, low schema coverage (0%), and output schema not used for description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output represents, nor does it help the agent choose this tool among many siblings. It essentially just names the action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names two parameters ('message' as free-text objective, 'inputs' as optional JSON string), adding basic meaning beyond the schema. However, the descriptions are minimal and lack format or constraints.
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 it runs a specific domain agent action ('plan_domain_intelligence') and mentions routing through the dispatcher under scopes. This is clear but lacks specificity about what the action actually does, and doesn't differentiate it from sibling commerce tools like 'commerce_chat' or 'commerce_competitor_watchlist'.
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 only notes that it routes through the dispatcher under certain scopes, but does not provide context or exclusions. With many commerce siblings, more guidance 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are needed, or what side effects occur. The internal routing detail does not substitute for transparency about behavior. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to hint at outputs.
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 short and front-loaded with the main action. The Args section is clear and concise. The detail about routing through the dispatcher is somewhat technical but not overly verbose. Overall, every sentence earns its place, though the routing sentence could be considered non-essential for an agent selecting the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, the description still lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, making it incomplete for an agent operating in a complex domain with many similar tools. The parameter documentation is adequate, but the overall completeness is average.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: 'message' is described as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Since the schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions in schema JSON), the description compensates well by providing these semantics. However, it could be improved by specifying expected formats or constraints for the free-text and JSON string.
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 runs the 'predict' action under the commerce domain agent, providing a verb and resource. However, it does not explain what 'predict' does in the commerce context (e.g., demand forecasting, price prediction), and it fails to distinguish itself from the many sibling commerce tools that have more specific names like 'commerce_demand_forecast' or 'commerce_price_optimization_run'. The purpose is clear at a high level 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is more about authentication than usage context. With many sibling tools, the agent is left without criteria for choosing this tool over others.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It reveals routing details (JWT/tenant/company) but does not explain whether the action is read-only or destructive, side effects, rate limits, or what happens during execution. This is insufficient for an action tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The args are listed with brief explanations. While not overly verbose, it could be slightly more concise by omitting the routing implementation detail (JWT/tenant/company scope) unless critical.
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 having an output schema (as per context signals), the description does not explain return values or expected outputs. It fails to clarify prerequisites, supported input formats, or error conditions. For a complex domain agent action, this leaves significant gaps.
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%, requiring the description to explain parameters. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding some meaning beyond the schema defaults. However, it lacks detail on expected format or examples, which would be beneficial.
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 runs the 'price_optimization_run' domain agent action and routes through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling commerce tools like commerce_pricing_intelligence or commerce_pricing_landscape, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool.
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 lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, which is critical given the large number of sibling tools in the commerce domain.
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 full burden. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. Behavior beyond routing 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and parameters without unnecessary text.
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 commerce tools and no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It fails to differentiate this tool from alternatives or to justify its use, leaving the agent without sufficient context to choose correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides the only parameter information. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but lacks details on expected formats or constraints. This is basic but adequate.
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 it runs the 'product_analysis' action in the commerce domain, routing through the platform's dispatcher. However, it does not explain what product analysis does, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's specific 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other commerce tools or under what conditions. The description lacks any contextual cues 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 provided, so description carries full behavioral burden. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, such as whether resuming is safe or destructive, or what triggers (e.g., long-running process). Minimal transparency beyond authentication context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise with two sentences and two parameter descriptions. Front-loaded with the action. No unnecessary words, but could include more context without increasing length significantly.
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 two optional parameters, an output schema exists, and sibling tools include sync variants, the description lacks essential context: what 'resume' implies, prerequisites (e.g., a paused sync), and how output is structured. Incomplete for a tool in a domain with related sync operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This clarifies semantics beyond the schema but remains vague—no details on expected format or purpose of inputs. Adequate but not thorough.
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 'Run' and the specific resource 'commerce domain agent action resume_sync', indicating it resumes a sync. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like commerce_catalog_sync or commerce_sync_status, limiting 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Excludes context like prerequisites for resuming a sync or when not to use. Siblings like commerce_catalog_sync suggest alternative sync operations, but no comparison 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to describe side effects, auth requirements beyond routing, or what the sync action does. This is insufficient for a tool with likely write/sync behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three short sentences, front-loading the action name and routing info. However, it could be more structured and include more detail without bulk.
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 output schema exists, return values are not needed, but the tool's purpose and effects are incomplete. It does not explain what 'sync_history' does, what triggers it, or how it differs from other sync tools. The description lacks essential context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage, placing the burden on the description. It explains message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds some meaning beyond the schema defaults. However, the descriptions are minimal and do not specify format, constraints, or examples.
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 runs the 'commerce domain agent action sync_history' and explains the routing scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like commerce_sync_status or commerce_resume_sync, and the purpose of 'sync_history' itself remains 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative commerce tools. There are no usage examples, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over others.
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 behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some authentication context. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or whether it is destructive. Significant gaps remain.
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 three sentences plus two argument lines, front-loading the main action. It is concise with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value. Could slightly improve by providing more 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?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values need not be described. However, with 0% schema coverage and two optional parameters, the description should provide more context about what 'vendor_onboarding' entails, expected inputs structure, and prerequisites. The minimal details leave the agent underinformed for a complex domain action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. These brief descriptions provide some semantics beyond the parameter names but lack format details or examples. Adequate but minimal.
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 tool runs the 'vendor_onboarding' commerce domain agent action. The verb 'Run' and resource are explicit. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'procurement_vendor_onboarding' or 'legal_vendor_onboard', though the 'commerce' prefix helps disambiguate by domain.
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 'procurement_vendor_onboarding' or 'legal_vendor_onboard'. No mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or conditions to avoid. The description only states what it does, not when to choose 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 mentions scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what the action does beyond the name. Insufficient behavioral context for a tool that invokes a domain 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 concise—two sentences plus an arg list—and well-structured. It avoids fluff but could combine the initial statements for slightly tighter prose. No unnecessary repetition.
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?
The tool has an output schema (as per context signals), so description is not required to explain return values. However, the description fails to explain what the 'analyze_results' action does or what scenarios it targets, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to parameters: 'message' is free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially but is brief. Baseline 3 is appropriate given coverage and added 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 it runs the 'analyze_results' action of the content domain agent. It provides the action name and mentions routing parameters, distinguishing it from generic tools. However, it doesn't differentiate from other content tools or sibling tools, which are numerous.
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 simply states what it does without context about prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the action 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the chat can modify data), rate limits, or destruction behavior. The agent cannot assess safety or impacts.
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 (two sentences plus an Arg list) and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose, though slightly more structure (e.g., separating routing from usage) could improve 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's complexity (chat with a domain agent) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the content domain can do via chat and how to phrase objectives. It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent unsure of the tool's capabilities and boundaries.
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 description adds basic meaning over the schema (which has 0% coverage) by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON. However, it lacks details on JSON structure or expected values, which is minimal compensation for the absent schema descriptions.
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 runs the content domain agent action 'chat', distinguishing it from other domain-specific chat tools (e.g., coding_chat, commerce_chat). However, it does not elaborate on what 'chat' entails (e.g., open-ended conversation vs. task execution), slightly reducing 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 alternative content tools like content_generate_content or content_analyze_results. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred use cases, leaving the agent without decision-making 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 must carry the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states routing and scope, omitting side effects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the action is read-only or destructive. The name 'generate' implies creation but is not clarified.
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 exceptionally concise: two well-structured sentences plus two bullet-pointed argument descriptions. No extraneous text; every sentence adds 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?
Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool. It lacks guidance on prerequisites, error handling, and differentiation from many sibling content tools, resulting in incomplete decision-making support.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This helps but lacks examples or format constraints, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 runs the 'generate_variants' action under the content domain agent, specifying the verb ('Run') and resource. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like content_generate_content or content_generate_plan, leaving ambiguity about what 'variants' specifically 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company) but lacks any when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references.
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 only mentions routing through a dispatcher. It fails to mention idempotency, side effects, failure modes, or security implications, which is critical for a pipeline 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 concise at five lines with an Arg list. It avoids fluff and gets to the point, though the structure could be improved with clearer sections. It is efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a pipeline tool and the lack of annotations, the description omits essential context: what the pipeline does, what outputs to expect, and how it differs from other content tools. The existing output schema hints at return values but is not explained, making the description incomplete.
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?
Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it remains vague about the content of 'inputs' and the expected format, partially compensating but not fully.
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 runs a specific action 'social_content_pipeline' with a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this pipeline from other content-related tools in the sibling list, such as content_generate_content or content_schedule, leaving the agent unsure of its unique 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?
The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It provides no context on prerequisites, alternatives, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke it over 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 bears full responsibility. It only states that the tool creates a task, implying a write operation, but provides no details on side effects (e.g., notifications, auto-assignment), authentication needs, or rate limits. 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 concise: one sentence plus a list of example fields. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While more detail could be added, the brevity is appropriate for a simple create operation.
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 (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description lacks completeness. It omits prerequisites, error handling, behavior on missing fields, and when to choose this tool over siblings. The output schema is not detailed but that is acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaning for the 'body' parameter by specifying it should be JSON with fields like title, status, assigneeId, etc. However, it does not explain the 'tenant_id' parameter or its optionality (though the schema shows a default). This partial compensation yields a score of 3.
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 'Create a CRM task' with a verb and resource. It lists example fields (title, status, assigneeId, etc.) which clarifies what the task body contains. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling task creation tools (e.g., clio_create_task, smokeball_create_task), though the CRM prefix in the name helps.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_crm_task, get_crm_task, or list_crm_tasks. No prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not describe side effects, idempotency, authorization requirements, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (two paragraphs) and front-loaded with the core action. It avoids fluff but could be more structured with sections for context and parameters.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple tool with an output schema, but lacks usage context and scenario-specific guidance. It provides the bare minimum for invocation without helping the agent understand when to choose it.
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 description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. With 0% schema coverage, this is minimal but functional. It does not clarify expected formats or provide examples.
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 runs the CRM domain agent action 'classify_reply' and specifies routing through a dispatcher. However, it does not explain what 'classify_reply' does, which limits differentiation from other CRM tools like 'crm_lead_qualification' or 'crm_chat'.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or contraindications, leaving the agent 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not state whether the action is read-only or writes data, what side effects may occur, or any required permissions. For a tool that executes an action, this 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 concise with three sentences and an argument list. It front-loads the core purpose. No unnecessary words, but the structure could be improved by grouping information more clearly.
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 an output schema (unknown content), 2 parameters, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the action returns, provide usage examples, or clarify how 'message' and 'inputs' interact. The agent would need additional context to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This provides basic semantics beyond the schema defaults, but lacks format examples, constraints, or how they interact.
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 it runs the CRM domain agent action `query_data` and routes through the platform dispatcher under scope. The verb 'Run' and resource 'crm domain agent action query_data' are specific, but the description does not elaborate on what query_data actually does beyond being an action. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the specific action, but does not explain how this differs from other CRM tools like crm_assess_pipeline.
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 context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling CRM tools, the AI agent lacks direction on whether to use this generic query or a specialized one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden but discloses only the routing mechanism. It does not state whether this is a read or write operation, side effects, permissions, or idempotency, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 short with three sentences, front-loaded with the core action. However, the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name, and the routing line adds context but is not essential.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the action's specific business function, return values, or edge cases. It feels incomplete for an internal routing tool.
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 description adds basic semantics to the two parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. However, with 0% schema coverage, more detail about expected formats and examples is needed to fully compensate.
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 runs a specific domain agent action for billing inquiry status, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not explain the action's business purpose in plain language, relying on the name's descriptiveness.
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 its siblings (e.g., customer_success_billing_triage). No context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but fails to describe whether the tool reads, writes, or generates data, nor any side effects or safety traits.
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 at three sentences plus bullet points. It front-loads the action name and routing context. However, it could be better structured with a clear outcome statement.
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 having an output schema, the description omits what the scan returns or accomplishes. It lacks completeness for a tool with only two optional parameters, leaving the agent without a full picture.
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 description adds minimal meaning for both parameters ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'), which is useful given 0% schema coverage. However, it does not explain how these inputs affect the action.
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 'Run' and the resource 'customer_success domain agent action churn_risk_scan', making the tool's purpose apparent. It distinguishes from sibling tools like health_score_report by focusing on churn risk. However, it does not elaborate on what the scan entails, limiting 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not state whether the action is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. Side effects, rate limits, or response characteristics 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes unnecessary routing detail ('Routes through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher...') that does not aid selection or invocation, slightly reducing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, for a tool that runs a report, the agent would benefit from knowing what the report covers or what the action entails. The behavioral transparency gap also contributes to incompleteness. Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds basic meaning beyond the bare schema, but lacks examples or details on expected JSON structure, limiting usefulness for correct parameter construction.
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 runs the 'health_score_report' action in the customer_success domain, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling customer_success tools like churn_risk_scan or onboarding_health, and could be more explicit about what the report contains.
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 customer_success_churn_risk_scan or customer_success_onboarding_health. No when-not-to-use or context for selection 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether it creates, updates, or triggers workflows), nor does it describe output format or potential risks like destructive actions.
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 short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated in the first sentence, followed by routing context and parameter notes. It is efficient but could include more value 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the renewal pipeline entails, what inputs it expects in detail, or how the output is structured. With no annotations and minimal parameter guidance, the tool is insufficiently described for an agent to use it effectively.
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 description lists the two parameters with brief explanations: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON. Given 0% schema coverage, this adds some meaning but lacks detail on expected values, constraints, or examples. It barely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.
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 runs a specific domain agent action ('renewal_pipeline') with a verb+resource structure. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like customer_success_churn_risk_scan or customer_success_health_score_report, which are similarly named but distinct 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making 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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool runs an action and routes under authentication scope. No mention of side effects, rate limits, expected outputs, or transformative behaviors. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clean structure: purpose sentence, routing context, and parameter list. No extraneous content. However, the parameter section could be expanded without losing conciseness, hence 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 having an output schema, the description omits any mention of return values or interaction patterns. For a domain agent chat tool, critical context like conversational flow or expected response format is missing, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Args' with brief semantics: 'message' as free-text objective, 'inputs' as optional structured JSON. This adds moderate value beyond the schema titles but lacks examples or constraints, leaving ambiguity about structured inputs.
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 runs the 'deep_research' domain agent action 'chat', specifying the resource and action. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the domain, it does not explicitly differentiate from other chat tools like 'commerce_chat' or 'engineering_chat', which rely on domain naming alone.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. Without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, the agent lacks decision 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope (authentication context) but does not state whether the action is read-only, modifies state, or has side effects. The behavioral impact is unclear.
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 (three sentences) and front-loads the main purpose. The routing detail, while technical, is relevant for understanding execution context. Every sentence contributes information, though the parameter descriptions could be more compact.
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 purpose (research query) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the relationship between 'message' and 'inputs', or the expected output semantics. For a domain action tool, more context about the research query capability is needed.
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 the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. However, it does not specify the expected format or constraints of 'inputs', leaving some ambiguity.
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 runs the 'research_query' action of the deep_research domain, specifying the routing mechanism. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deep_research_chat and deep_research_synthesize by name, but does not explain what the action achieves beyond 'run the action', leaving some ambiguity about its business 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 is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide between this and other deep_research tools or sibling 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 exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'remove', implying deletion, but lacks details on reversibility, error handling (e.g., if preference_id doesn't exist), 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient and front-loaded, but may be overly concise given the lack of annotations and parameter explanations.
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 one required parameter and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context about input requirements or output behavior, despite the presence of an output schema.
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 meaning or source of the 'preference_id' parameter. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description should clarify where to obtain it (e.g., from list_approval_preferences).
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 'Remove an auto-accept rule.' uses a specific verb (Remove) and resource (auto-accept rule), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_approval_auto_accept and list_approval_preferences.
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 vs alternatives, such as set_approval_preference_state for deactivation, or what prerequisites are needed (e.g., having a preference_id from list_approval_preferences).
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions authentication and scoping (JWT, tenant, company), but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus a clear args list. Every sentence is necessary, no fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded. Ideal structure for quick parsing.
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 having an output schema, the description provides insufficient context about the engineering domain's scope (e.g., what types of engineering tasks it handles) and lacks any prerequisites or examples. An agent would struggle to decide when to invoke this tool over similar chat tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It adds meaning by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but lacks examples or constraints that would help the agent construct valid inputs. Barely adequate.
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 runs the engineering domain agent action 'chat', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from many sibling chat tools across other domains, leaving the agent unsure what distinguishes engineering_chat from coding_chat or commerce_chat.
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. The description only gives operational details about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher, without any cues for appropriate use cases 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 fully disclose behavior. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and JWT/tenant/company scope, indicating auth requirements. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. For a search action, it likely is read-only, but that's 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one sentence and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes the args in a clear format. There is no redundant information, though the routing detail could be considered secondary.
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 search tool with an output schema (though not shown), the description is mostly adequate but missing details on output format or what 'search_project_drawings' entails (e.g., returns drawing IDs, metadata?). It hints at scope but doesn't explain the domain-agent dispatcher or typical result structure, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides the only parameter documentation. It adds minimal but helpful descriptions: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema fields, but the descriptions are quite generic and lack detail on expected format or constraints.
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 project drawings within the engineering domain agent. It specifies the action name 'search_project_drawings', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar search tools like 'search_documents', so it loses a point for sibling 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions routing and scope but does not provide context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action is run and routed, but does not disclose side effects, what gets created or modified, or any behavioral traits beyond the dispatch mechanism.
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 a front-loaded main sentence and clear arg list. No unnecessary words, though the arg section could be slightly more compact.
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 (domain agent action for packet generation), the description is minimal. It lacks prerequisites, output expectations, and behavior on success/failure. Output schema exists but is not shown, so description should still provide context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds helpful semantic labels: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates partially, but still leaves ambiguity about the expected structure of inputs.
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 explicitly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'finance domain agent action board_meeting_packet_generation', making the purpose clear. It does not differentiate from sibling tools, but the name itself is distinct.
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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance_board_pack or finance_board_dashboard_page. It only explains routing and scope, not 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, and the description only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions required, or output behavior, which is critical 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and an args section, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds some value, though the args section could be integrated more naturally.
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 having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. Parameters are underspecified, and no behavioral context compensates for the lack of annotations, leaving the agent underinformed for a domain agent action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds minimal meaning: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON. This adds value over the bare schema, but is still vague and does not specify input constraints or examples.
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 the tool runs a finance domain agent action named 'finance_board_pack', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it lacks specificity about what the action does compared to sibling tools like 'finance_board_dashboard_page' or 'finance_board_meeting_packet_generation', preventing full 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. It simply instructs to run the action without mentioning prerequisites, context, or when-not-to-use scenarios, leaving the agent without decision-making 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It reveals routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under authentication and scope, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor what the response structure is. The behavior of the domain chat action is vague.
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 efficient, consisting of a clear one-line purpose, followed by a brief implementation note, and a clean parameter list. There is no redundant information, making it easy for the AI agent to parse quickly.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional string params) and the presence of an output schema (not described), the description is adequate but not comprehensive for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by clarifying that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This goes beyond the schema's minimal string types, but the semantics of each parameter are still partially ambiguous (e.g., what constitutes a valid objective?).
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 runs the finance domain agent action `chat`, with a verb and resource. The name 'finance_chat' further distinguishes it from other domain-specific chat tools (e.g., commerce_chat, content_chat) found in the sibling list.
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 indicates the tool is for free-text finance objectives and accepts structured inputs, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other finance_* tools (e.g., finance_aging, finance_forecasting) or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing and scope but does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, rate limits, required permissions, or side effects on data. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's operational characteristics.
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 relatively concise, with three sentences covering action, routing, and parameters. It front-loads the key purpose and method. However, it includes some technical routing details that may be less critical for the agent's selection decision.
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 that an output schema exists (context signal indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not explain return values or what the agent should expect. It also lacks prerequisites, typical use cases, or error scenarios. For a complex domain agent action, this description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does explain that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds some semantic value beyond the bare schema, but it remains vague (e.g., what kind of objectives are expected? what structured inputs?). The description partially compensates but could be more 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 clearly states that the tool runs a finance domain agent action named 'funding_readiness_assessment' and explains the routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. It identifies the verb 'run' and the specific resource/action. However, it does not explicitly describe the outcome or what the assessment produces, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's exact 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many other finance-related tools (e.g., finance_forecasting, finance_capital_allocation_analysis) but the description offers no comparison or selection criteria. The agent must infer usage context from the tool 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 bear the full burden. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., does it create or update data?), error conditions, rate limits, or any behavioral traits beyond technical plumbing.
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 relatively concise with a clear structure: a one-line summary followed by parameter explanations. However, the summary and parameter descriptions could be more succinct and front-loaded. There is no unnecessary repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, the description lacks crucial operational context: what the valuation action actually does, what types of private companies it applies to, prerequisites, and error handling. Given the moderate complexity and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 parameter descriptions in the docstring add minimal meaning: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Since the schema itself has empty descriptions (0% coverage), the text provides some clarification, but it remains vague and doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples.
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 runs the 'finance_private_company_valuation' domain agent action. The name is specific and differentiates from siblings in the finance domain (e.g., finance_peer_valuation_multiples, finance_project_valuation). However, it doesn't explain what the action accomplishes (e.g., 'calculates the valuation of a private company').
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, use cases, or scenarios mentioned. The description only states the technical routing mechanism, not 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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope. It does not indicate read-only or destructive nature, side effects, authorization requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and front-loads the action name. It could be slightly more efficient by combining the routing detail with the purpose, but it is not 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?
Given the complexity of project valuation and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what a project valuation involves, what inputs are typically expected in 'inputs', or what the output contains. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description usefully adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This goes beyond the schema's defaults, though more specific input expectations would be helpful.
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 tool runs a specific action ('finance_project_valuation') but does not explain what project valuation entails. Given sibling tools like 'finance_private_company_valuation' and 'finance_growth_equity_valuation', the purpose is too vague for an agent to differentiate.
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 the many other finance tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, 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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, destructive potential, authorization needs, or rate limits. Incomplete for safe invocation.
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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args section is clear. No redundant information, each 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 the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on prerequisites, errors, or what a 'cross-domain scenario' entails. Sufficient for basic usage 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates minimally. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, but lacks format, constraints, or examples. Adequate but not rich.
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 runs a finance domain agent action for cross-domain scenarios, specifying the routing mechanism. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar finance run tools, though the unique name helps.
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., finance_list_cross_domain_scenarios or other finance run actions). 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 are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose side effects (likely writing to Stripe/Xero), destructive potential, auth requirements beyond generic scoping, or rate limits. The behavioral impact is completely opaque.
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 three short paragraphs and a clear 'Args' section. Information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words, but the Args section could be more informative without adding 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?
Despite having an output schema and two optional parameters, the description lacks essential context about the tool's purpose, effects, and usage scenarios. The name suggests a coordination between Stripe and Xero, but the description does not elaborate, leaving the agent with insufficient information to decide when to invoke it.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It defines 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema defaults. No constraints or formatting hints are provided, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 'Run the finance domain agent action stripe_xero_writeback_fanout', clearly identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what the action actually does operationally (e.g., writeback from Stripe to Xero), and fails to differentiate from numerous sibling tools with similar names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., direct Stripe or Xero tools). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information 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. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose key behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the action actually does beyond its name.
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 short, front-loaded with a clear header, and uses bullet points for parameters. It avoids fluff but sacrifices meaningful detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the domain agent action does, how inputs affect behavior, or when to provide inputs. This is insufficient for a tool that proxies to an action with no required parameters.
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 description adds meaning to parameters beyond the schema: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, it does not specify expected format for inputs or constraints for the message.
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 'Run the finance domain agent action finance_treasury_risk_loop', which identifies the verb (run) and resource (domain agent action). However, it lacks business context to distinguish it from similar sibling tools like finance_treasury_runway_dashboard or finance_treasury_support.
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 only explains the routing mechanism but not the specific scenarios or objectives that would make this tool 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 carries full burden but only mentions routing scope (JWT, tenant, company). It does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, side effects, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a generic action runner.
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 short and front-loaded, with three clear sections: action, routing scope, and args. No redundant information, but could be slightly more efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (unknown content) and two optional parameters, the description is minimal but functional. It does not explain the action's purpose or output, but the output schema likely covers returns.
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%, but the description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds value beyond the schema, but lacks detail on inputs format or constraints.
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 runs the finance_treasury_support domain agent action, specifying the verb 'Run' and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic runner for a specific action, though it doesn't explain what the action 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like dispatch_domain_agent or other finance tools. The description only explains routing behavior, not usage context 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, and the description gives minimal behavioral context. It states it retrieves a run detail but does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling for missing run_id, or any side effects. For a read operation, the description should provide more 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, which is concise but lacks substantive detail. It earns its place for brevity but fails to convey necessary information, making it under-specified rather 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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to provide adequate context about what 'run detail' encompasses. For a simple tool with one parameter, the description is barely adequate and leaves the agent guessing.
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 additional meaning for the run_id parameter beyond its name. The agent gets no guidance on what constitutes a valid run_id (e.g., format, source). This is a critical gap.
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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'AutoCompany run detail', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_aoc_runs which lists runs, and get_aoc_decision/get_aoc_task which operate on different resources.
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 this tool versus alternatives like list_aoc_runs. The purpose is implied by the name, but the description fails to clarify context such as needing a specific run_id vs. listing all runs.
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 burden but only states it sends an email. It does not disclose mutation effects, rate limits, size constraints, or that it creates a sent email. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a clear bulleted list under 'Args' and is relatively concise. However, the subject field has an empty description, which wastes space.
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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description fails to mention the output schema, attachments (not supported?), or error cases. The contradiction on required fields further undermines 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%, so description must compensate. It provides brief parameter descriptions (e.g., comma-separated addresses, HTML flag) but contradicts the schema by marking to, subject, body as required when schema has zero required parameters. Subject description is empty. Incomplete and inaccurate.
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 sends an email from the connected Gmail account. It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('email'), and differentiates from sibling Gmail tools like list and get.
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., gmail_modify for drafts). The description merely states the action without specifying when 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 provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing via JWT/tenant/company scope but fails to describe side effects, idempotency, auth needs, or error behavior. Minimal value beyond 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?
The description is concise, with the first line stating the core purpose, followed by routing context and parameter explanations. No extraneous content, though the routing info could be condensed.
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 an output schema, the description provides the minimal context to invoke the action. However, it lacks details on what 'regulatory_monitoring' entails, making it less complete for an agent to determine appropriateness among similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, which adds semantic meaning but lacks format details or examples.
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 runs the 'regulatory_monitoring' action of the GRC domain agent, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling GRC tools that 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative GRC tools like grc_compliance_audit or grc_risk_register_scan. The description omits when-not 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 provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It lacks details on side effects (e.g., read-only vs. write), return value format, or whether it is destructive. The routing info is helpful but insufficient for a comprehensive understanding.
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 (5 lines) and front-loaded with the action name. Some redundancy exists ('Run the grc domain agent action...' and 'Routes through...'), but overall it is well-structured.
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?
The description covers purpose and parameters but omits details about output or potential side effects. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but behavioral context is lacking. For a report-generation tool, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema but lacks depth (e.g., expected format of inputs).
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 runs a tax compliance report and specifies routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like grc_tax_deadline_alerts or grc_tax_obligation_scan, which are related but distinct.
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. The description mentions routing and scope but does not provide context for when to invoke it or when to choose sibling 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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not disclose behavioral traits like mutability, side effects, authorization needs beyond standard scoping, or rate limits. The actual effect of the action is not described.
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 at four sentences, but the second sentence about routing is implementation detail that may not be agent-essential. It is front-loaded with purpose but could be more agent-friendly by focusing on what the action does rather than how it routes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (signal true) for return values, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks prerequisites, error handling, or typical usage context. For a domain agent action runner, more context about the launch coordination action would be helpful.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by labeling 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies purpose beyond the schema titles, but lacks format details or constraints on the JSON.
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 'Run the gtm domain agent action `launch_coordination`', specifying the action name and resource. It is distinct from siblings by naming the action, but does not contrast with similar tools like gtm_launch_readiness or gtm_go_to_market_plan.
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 vs alternatives. The description only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is authentication context, not usage criteria. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' explanation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful behavioral hint ('HITL-gated'), indicating human approval is required, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, what happens on failure, or any permission requirements.
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 short sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. While more details could be added, the existing text is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role in advancing a candidate (a state-changing operation) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (even though an output schema exists), prerequisites, side effects, or possible errors. The agent has insufficient context to confidently invoke 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?
The input schema has zero description coverage for both parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'application_id' (presumably the candidate ID) or 'body' (possibly notes or custom data). The agent must guess parameter semantics without any guidance.
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 ('Advance') and the resource ('a Greenhouse candidate to the next stage'), and adds a useful contextual hint ('HITL-gated'). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'greenhouse_advance_application', which likely performs a similar function without the HITL gate.
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 the sibling 'greenhouse_advance_application' or other candidate progression tools. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
Behavior1/5
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 source without indicating if the operation is read-only, what data is returned, permissions needed, or any side effects. This is a critical gap for a tool that likely fetches data.
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 extraneous information. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more descriptive (e.g., mentioning the tool lists cases) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks completeness by not clarifying whether it returns a list, applies filters, or requires any context. It is minimally adequate but could be more informative.
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, achieving 100% coverage by default. The description adds value by specifying the source (Monday.com), which is not inferable from the schema alone. For zero-parameter tools, the baseline is 4, and the description meets that.
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 the tool provides 'HR case-board items from Monday.com,' which clearly indicates the domain (HR cases) and source (Monday.com). However, it does not explicitly state the verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'), making the action slightly implied. Among siblings like hr_live_health or hr_live_leave_balance, it is distinguishable as the one focused on case-board items.
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 vs. alternatives such as hr_cases_pulse_loop or other hr_live_* tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, specify authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is included (e.g., pending leave adjustments). The description lacks sufficient 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 (one sentence) and thus concise, but it lacks structure and detail. It front-loads the key information but could benefit from additional context about the purpose and scope. It is not verbose, but it is also not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, clear purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. However, it does not explain what the balance value represents (e.g., accrued, available, remaining), whether it includes pending leave, or the time period. An agent might need to infer from the output schema.
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 'bamboo_employee_id' parameter beyond its schema title. While the parameter is self-explanatory as an employee identifier, the description adds no additional meaning, such as how to find the ID or its format. The schema itself provides minimal 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 'BambooHR leave balance for an employee' clearly identifies the resource (leave balance) and the implied action (retrieve/view). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'hr_live_whos_out' (who is out on leave) and 'hr_leave_request' (requesting leave) by focusing specifically on the current balance.
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 prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria. Agents have no information about scenarios where this tool is appropriate or when another tool (e.g., hr_live_whos_out) should be used instead.
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 that the tool routes through the dispatcher and takes message/inputs, but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, or what the action does internally. For a mutation-like tool, transparency is lacking.
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 three sentences, including parameter documentation. No extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose. Well-structured for quick reading, earning a 4.
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?
The tool has an output schema but the description does not explain what is returned. Given the complexity of a pipeline loop that dispatches domain actions, the agent needs to know expected outputs, error conditions, or asynchronous behavior. The description is incomplete in providing a full picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is better than nothing but does not provide syntax, format constraints, or examples. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not enough to fully compensate.
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 runs the hr domain agent action 'recruiting_pipeline_loop' and routes through the dispatcher. It specifies the resource and action, which is distinct from other HR tools like hr_live_recruiting_applications. However, it could be more explicit about what the pipeline loop accomplishes, earning a 4 rather than 5.
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 explains how it works (through the dispatcher) but does not give context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions. This is insufficient for an agent to choose it over 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 carry the burden. It only mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The name 'snapshot' implies read-only, but it's not confirmed.
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 plus an Args list. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary detail. Could be slightly more informative but efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two optional parameters and no required ones, the description lacks context on typical usage, relationship between message and inputs, and behavior of the snapshot action. Even with an output schema present, the description leaves the agent uncertain about tasks it can perform.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero property descriptions, so the description's addition of 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' adds meaning. However, it does not explain how the message and inputs interact or provide formatting details.
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 'Run' and the resource 'controller_snapshot' within the intuit domain. It specifies it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like intuit_controller_action, leaving some ambiguity about the exact 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 such as intuit_controller_action, intuit_controller_review, or quickbooks_controller_snapshot. The description lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which indicates auth requirements, but does not specify whether the action is destructive, what side effects occur, or any limitations. For a writeback action, one would expect mutation but it is not explicitly 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 concise, with two sentences and a list of args. It front-loads the purpose. The routing information could be more compact, but overall it is efficiently structured.
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 having an output schema (which covers return values), the description fails to explain what the writeback_plan action actually accomplishes in business terms. The agent is left without understanding the context or when to invoke this tool, making it incomplete for informed use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. While this adds some meaning beyond the parameter names, it lacks detail on expected formats, examples, or constraints. The baseline for 0 params is 4, but the weak semantics lower it.
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 runs the 'writeback_plan' domain agent action, specifying the verb ('run') and the resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling intuit_* tools, which all appear to be similar domain agent 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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, business context, or when not to use it. The description simply says to run the action without any decision 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?
The description notes that the tool routes through a dispatcher with authentication context, but it does not disclose whether the action is destructive, what data it modifies, or what side effects occur. Since no annotations are provided, the description should compensate but it only gives minimal operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with only three sentences, front-loading the action name and key operational context. It avoids redundancy but could still be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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 an output schema, the description covers the basic semantics. However, it lacks context about the purpose of the feedback loop, when to trigger it, and what insights it provides, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding.
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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema: 'message' is described as a free-text objective, and 'inputs' as optional structured JSON. This is helpful given 0% schema coverage, but the description could be more specific about expected formats or constraints.
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 explicitly states that the tool runs the 'feedback_to_code_loop' domain agent action. The verb 'Run' and the specific action name provide a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'it_ops_feedback_to_sdlc', which likely has a similar role.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant scope, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'it_ops_feedback_to_sdlc' or other it_ops actions. No explicit exclusions or 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides some context, but does not disclose whether the action is destructive, read-only, or what side effects (if any) occur. The term 'maintenance cycle' suggests a management operation, but the behavior remains ambiguous.
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 three sentences plus parameter descriptions. It is efficiently written, but the key action (first sentence) could be more front-loaded to immediately convey the core purpose. 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?
Despite having an output schema (indicated in context signals), the description does not mention return values, output structure, or any side effects. For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, important context about when to invoke it and what to expect is missing, making it incomplete.
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 description adds meaning to both parameters beyond the schema (which only provides default values and types). It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is helpful, but it lacks further detail such as constraints, expected format, or examples.
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 runs a specific domain agent action ('maintenance_cycle') with a proper verb-resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from numerous sibling tools in the it_ops domain, such as it_ops_deployment or it_ops_analysis_review, so the uniqueness is not emphasized.
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, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. It merely states what the tool does without contextualizing when it 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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the dispatcher and scope but omits side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or whether the action is synchronous or asynchronous. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to explain return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant information. However, it could pack more useful details without increasing length significantly.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered elsewhere. But for planning IaC, the description lacks context on what constitutes a plan, how to interpret results, or any prerequisites. Combined with no annotations, it leaves significant gaps.
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 the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not specify expected structure or constraints, adding minimal value beyond the schema's 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 states the specific action 'plan_iac' and its routing mechanism. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like it_ops_plan_iteration or it_ops_plan_domain_intelligence, and the verb 'Run' is generic.
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., it_ops_generate_iac). No explicit context or exclusions. The description only explains internal routing, not 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under the user's JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it creates or modifies resources), safety implications, or failure modes. The absence of read-only/destructive hints is a gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences plus an args list, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Run the it_ops domain agent action `plan_iteration`'). Every sentence 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?
The description lacks sufficient context for a domain agent action. It does not explain what 'plan iteration' entails, what the output schema contains (despite an output schema existing), or how the inputs should be structured. The tool interacts with a dispatcher, but the description omits key details for correct usage.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not specify the expected format or keys for 'inputs', limiting semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `plan_iteration`', specifying the verb and resource. It explains routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like it_ops_plan_iac or it_ops_plan_domain_intelligence, leaving the exact meaning of 'plan iteration' ambiguous without 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. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it. The only context is the routing mechanism, which is behavioral rather than usage-oriented.
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. Description mentions routing details but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The 'Run' verb implies mutation, but clarity is lacking.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then args. No wasted words. Efficient and well-structured.
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?
Missing critical context: what does the project_ops action actually do? No mention of return values despite existence of an output schema. No handling of edge cases like empty message or malformed inputs.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is helpful but lacks detail on expected JSON structure or possible 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 states 'Run the it_ops domain agent action project_ops', identifying the specific action. However, it lacks explanation of what project_ops accomplishes, making it less distinctive among many sibling it_ops tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other it_ops tools. Only describes routing (JWT, tenant, company scope), not usage context or 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?
The description discloses routing through an API endpoint and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company). However, it fails to state whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns all users or paginated results, or any rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides only partial 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 brief, consisting of three short sentences. It is easy to parse and front-loads the operation identity. However, it could be more structured (e.g., separating purpose, usage, and arguments) and the routing detail may be unnecessary for selection.
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?
Although an output schema exists (mitigating need for return value details), the description omits critical context: whether the user list is global or scoped, pagination behavior, and typical response structure. This is a significant gap for a list operation that an agent needs to interpret and handle 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?
The sole parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string of arguments for the connector operation, but the schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds no meaningful semantics beyond the parameter name and schema type, leaving the agent without clues about valid argument keys or 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-resource: 'list_users' from Jira connector. It identifies the operation and platform tool name. However, it does not differentiate this list users operation from similar tools in other systems (e.g., clio_list_users, slack_list_users), and it omits any Jira-specific scope or filtering 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided in favor of other Jira search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions routing under JWT scope but does not describe side effects, whether data is modified, or what the action entails. The agent cannot determine if this tool is read-only or mutative.
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 and uses a bulleted list for parameters, making it easy to scan. However, it could be more informative without adding 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 the complexity of the legal domain and numerous sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the tool's relationship to other legal actions, expected outcomes, or provide examples. An output schema exists but is not described, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 description explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, adding some meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it does not specify the expected structure of 'inputs' or any constraints, and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates but remains basic.
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 this tool runs the legal domain agent action 'breach_response' and routes through the platform's dispatcher. However, it does not explain what 'breach_response' actually does, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone. This is somewhat vague but still conveys a specific resource and 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 'legal_privacy_incident_response_loop' or other legal tools. The description lacks context for tool selection, which is critical given the large number of sibling 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, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read/write, side effects). It only states that it 'produces a digest' but does not clarify whether it fetches live data, modifies any state, or requires specific access rights. This is insufficient for safe tool selection.
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, using a single paragraph plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be made by structuring the parameter descriptions more consistently (e.g., using bullet points).
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?
An output schema exists but is not shown; the description only mentions 'digest' generically. Given four parameters with optional constraints and many sibling legal monitoring tools, the description lacks sufficient context to ensure complete understanding of the tool's scope and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It describes 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and gives example values for 'topics' ('privacy', 'AML', 'employment'). However, it lacks details on expected date format for 'since', valid values for 'jurisdictions', or constraints. This provides partial semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Monitor') and resource ('regulatory and compliance changes') and specifies the output ('digest of new obligations, deadlines, and action items'). However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like 'legal_horizon_scan' or 'legal_horizon_digest', leaving the agent unsure when to choose this over those.
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 or when not to use it. Prerequisites, such as required data sources or user permissions, are not mentioned. The agent receives no context for appropriate invocation.
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 convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, destructive potential, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond basic auth context. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.
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, consisting of two sentences plus an args list. It is front-loaded with the action name and essential context. No wasted words, though it could be slightly clearer about the tool's purpose relative to siblings.
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 large set of sibling tools and the absence of annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and differentiation from similar tools. An output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description to explain return values. The tool's complexity is low (2 optional params), but the context provided is insufficient for reliable selection.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds basic meaning but no format details, constraints, or examples. For two parameters, this is minimally adequate but not rich.
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 identifies the tool as running a specific legal domain agent action 'content_compliance_review_loop', which provides a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like legal_compliance_monitoring or legal_compliance_scan_loop, limiting clarity about when this specific loop is appropriate.
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. The description lacks context for usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for tool selection among many legal compliance 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?
Annotation is absent, and the description provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under scope but does not disclose side effects, destructive nature, rate limits, or whether it is a read or write operation. 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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening line, routing context, and bullet-like args. Every sentence adds value with 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool. It lacks clarity on the action's purpose, usage context, and behavioral traits. The two optional parameters are explained minimally. Given the complexity of a domain agent action, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates by naming the parameters and stating 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds basic meaning but lacks details on expected format or constraints.
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 runs a specific legal domain agent action 'horizon_scan', distinguishing it from sibling tools like legal_horizon_digest and legal_horizon_subscribe by emphasizing it triggers an action rather than digests or subscriptions. However, it does not explain what a horizon scan does, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. It does not mention scenarios like 'use for active scanning' or 'prefer this over legal_horizon_digest when you need to trigger a new scan'. The description only covers routing mechanics.
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 mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (auth context) but does not describe side effects, destructiveness, error cases, or output format, leaving agents 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 short and efficient, with one sentence for purpose and a bullet-style argument list. It is front-loaded but could be more structured (e.g., separating behavior from parameters).
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 routing tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential action and authentication context. However, it omits what the generated packet contains, error handling, and fallback behavior, which is needed for fuller situational awareness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `message` as a free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON, adding basic meaning, but lacks details on expected keys, formats, or examples.
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 runs the legal domain agent action `hr_onboarding_packet` and mentions routing through a dispatcher. It distinguishes the tool as HR-onboarding-specific among many legal and HR sibling tools, though it could be more explicit about the packet content.
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 like `hr_onboard` or `legal_employment_agreement_packet`. Prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selection are absent.
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 mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, indicating auth context, but it does not describe side effects, rate limits, or what the action actually does. This is insufficient for a tool that likely involves IP protection tasks.
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 very concise: three sentences plus a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the tool's action name and avoids unnecessary text.
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 having an output schema, the description omits what the tool does functionally. Name suggests IP protection, but no details. For a domain agent action, more context about the action's purpose and behavior is needed.
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 the description must explain parameters. It adds meaning by labeling 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This is helpful but minimal; it does not clarify expected formats or examples.
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 the tool runs the 'legal domain agent action ip_protection_loop', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what ip_protection_loop does, relying on the tool name alone. Among many legal sibling tools, additional differentiation is needed.
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 mention prerequisites, context, or conditions for use. The description lacks any usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to mention side effects, data mutations, or other behavioral characteristics of the growth loop. This is minimal disclosure for a potentially complex 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 short and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The parameter descriptions are in a clear docstring format. It avoids unnecessary words, though the arg descriptions could be more integrated for slightly better readability.
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 that the tool is a generic wrapper to run a domain action, the description provides the minimum necessary to invoke it. However, it lacks context on what the growth loop does, expected outcomes, or how the response relates to the action. An output schema exists but is not mentioned, so completeness is adequate but not rich.
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 the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: 'message' is described as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides more meaning than the bare schema, but lacks detail on expected format or examples, leaving room for ambiguity.
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 'Run the legal domain agent action law_firm_growth_loop', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling legal tools by specifying 'growth loop', though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar legal action tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor any when-not-to-use scenarios. It simply describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context without explicit direction.
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 mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is useful, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what actions are actually performed. As a proxy, the behavior 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and structured with an Args list. Every sentence adds information. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention return values. For a proxy tool that can perform many actions, the description is incomplete—it doesn't hint at what the action does or outcome. More context about the action's scope would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains message as 'Free-text objective' and inputs as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding basic meaning beyond the schema's titles. However, it does not provide examples or constraints.
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 'Run' and the specific resource 'legal domain agent action `smokeball_matter_operations`'. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher. However, it does not differentiate this proxy tool from specific smokeball tools like smokeball_create_matter or smokeball_update_matter.
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 alternative specific smokeball tools. There is no mention of when-not to use it, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. The description only states what it does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 disclosing behavior. It describes the routing mechanism but does not state whether the action is read-only or mutation, what side effects occur, or what resources are affected. The agent is left uninformed about potential impacts.
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, consisting of a one-line purpose, a routing context sentence, and a two-argument breakdown. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. However, the parameter list format could be more integrated.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the two parameters adequately. However, given the tool's nature (acting as a dispatcher for a domain action), more context about what 'tax_deadline_alerts' does (e.g., returns deadlines, triggers notifications) would improve completeness. The output schema may fill this gap, but it is not shown.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' adding meaning beyond parameter names. However, 'structured inputs' is vague and does not specify expected keys or formats.
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 runs the 'tax_deadline_alerts' action in the legal domain. It explicitly names the action and the routing mechanism, giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying 'legal domain agent action', but does not elaborate on what the action 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 mentions the routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'legal_tax_compliance_report' or 'grc_tax_deadline_alerts'. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher and scoping, but does not disclose the action's side effects, safety, or outcome. For a tool that delegates to an action, more behavioral context is needed to inform the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with four sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds routing context, and lists parameters with brief explanations. No extraneous 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 that the tool delegates to a domain agent action and has an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain the action's behavior, return values, or error conditions. The agent is left to infer what vendor_onboard does, which is insufficient for a delegated action.
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 the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This is helpful but lacks format details or examples for the JSON string.
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 runs the legal domain agent action `vendor_onboard`, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating it is a domain agent action dispatcher, unlike other legal tools that may be direct integrations. However, it could be more explicit about what the vendor_onboard action 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `legal_vendor_onboarding_legal_loop` or `legal_vendor_renew`. The description mentions that it routes under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which gives some context but no exclusionary or preferential usage conditions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It fails to mention any aspects such as read-only nature, pagination, or authorization requirements, leaving 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is appropriately concise for a parameterless tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what identity records are and does not reference the output schema, leaving some completeness gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning, but baseline 3 is appropriate given no parameters to elaborate on.
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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'identity records' clearly. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'memory_list_entries' or 'memory_list_events', which 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on what constitutes an identity record. The description offers no 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, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'semantically' without explaining how search works, side effects, or auth needs. Minimal disclosure.
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?
Short and to the point, using a structured Args format. No wasted words, though slightly more context could be added without bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of output schema, the description is adequate but shallow. Does not explain return format or behavior beyond basics.
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 compensate. It provides basic explanations for each parameter (query, namespace, top_k) with defaults, adding meaning beyond names and types, but is minimal.
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 'Search agent memory semantically,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from many sibling tools but does not differentiate from other memory search tools like memory_query or memory_recall.
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., memory_query, memory_recall) or when not to use. Lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only indicates routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not explain the action's effects, return values, or side effects. There is no mention of whether it is read-only or destructive, leaving critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 and front-loaded with the primary action. It uses a clear Args section. Minor inefficiency: the routing detail ('Routes through...') could be considered less essential, but overall it is well-structured and brief.
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?
The description lacks critical information such as return values, error handling, and prerequisites. It does not explain what the 'kb_author' action does in terms of its business function. For a tool with no annotations and minimal schema, this is insufficiently complete for an agent to use confidently.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the two parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. The explanations are clear but minimal, lacking details on expected formats or examples. This adds basic semantics but is not comprehensive.
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 explicitly identifies the tool as executing the 'kb_author' domain agent action, providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling notion tools by specifying the action name. However, it does not elaborate on what the action does, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 inform the agent when to choose this tool over other notion tools or alternatives. It lacks any contextual advice on appropriate 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 should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing via domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not indicate side effects (create/read/update/delete), permissions needed, or what happens upon execution.
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 brief and front-loaded, with two sentences and a bullet list for arguments. No unnecessary 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context about the tool's behavior, purpose, or expected inputs. An agent would not understand what template_runner accomplishes or how to use it effectively.
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 description adds meaning to both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but lacks details like expected structure or constraints.
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 'Run' and the resource 'notion domain agent action template_runner', indicating it executes a specific action. However, it does not explain what template_runner does, and among numerous sibling Notion tools, it lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like notion_chat or notion_create_page. There are no prerequisites or usage contexts 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the listing action without mentioning read-only nature, auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds no behavioral context 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.
Conciseness3/5
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 too sparse to fully convey the tool's purpose and usage; it earns its place but underdelivers.
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 schema descriptions, no annotations, and a simple output schema, the description should provide more context about expected capabilities and how session_id is used. It is incomplete for effective tool selection and 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 schema has 0% description coverage for a required session_id parameter, but the description does not mention the parameter or its purpose. With no parameter documentation in the schema, 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?
The description clearly states that the tool lists page capabilities with examples like forms, search, and auth. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like page_builder_create or page_builder_preview.
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 capabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or context-sensitive instructions 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 are present, so the description carries full burden. It implies mutation ('post') but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. 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 very short (one sentence), which makes it concise but lacks necessary detail. It is front-loaded but too sparse to be fully 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?
With no annotations and low schema coverage, the description fails to provide return value info or behavioral details. The output schema exists but is unmentioned. Incomplete for a 2-parameter 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%. The description only adds that body is JSON, but does not explain the format or constraints for body or task_id. 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 action 'Post a new event onto an AutoCompany task', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_aoc_task_events' (list) and 'get_aoc_task' (get).
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, prerequisites, or context. The description only says 'Body is JSON' but does not explain usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT and scope, which is helpful, but fails to indicate whether the chat action is read-only, mutating, stateful, or what side effects may occur. The behavior of the 'chat' 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with three sentences covering purpose, routing, and parameters. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous text. The first line could be slightly more descriptive but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it fails to explain the chat behavior (e.g., whether it maintains state or can trigger actions) and provides no completeness beyond parameter names. For a chat tool, key context is missing.
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 the description must add meaning. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds basic semantics beyond the schema defaults, but lacks details on format or examples.
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 'Run the procurement domain agent action `chat`,' which identifies the domain (procurement) and the action (chat). The args mention 'Free-text objective,' indicating it takes natural language input. However, it does not differentiate from sibling domain chat tools (e.g., commerce_chat, crm_chat) or explain what the chat action accomplishes.
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 other procurement tools (e.g., procurement_spend_analysis) or alternative domain chat tools. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool routes through the domain-agent dispatcher and uses JWT/tenant/company scope, but it does not describe the action's side effects, return format, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged.
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 (two sentences plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it lacks structural elements like sections for behavioral or return value 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 tool's complexity (domain agent action) and the existence of an output schema, the description should explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' does and what the agent can expect as output. It does not provide this context, leaving the agent reliant on the tool name alone. Among many similar sibling tools, this is insufficient for confident selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by labeling 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This provides basic semantics beyond the schema's defaults and types, though it lacks details on formats or constraints.
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 this tool runs the 'plan_domain_intelligence' action for the procurement domain, distinguishing it from similar tools for other domains (e.g., commerce, crm). The verb 'Run' and the specific action name provide clarity, though the description does not elaborate on what the action 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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other procurement tools like chat or spend analysis, or other domain intelligence tools). No exclusions or preferred contexts 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 are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a helpful context, but fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any security implications. For a procurement action, such transparency is critical.
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 at four lines for the main body and two lines for arguments, using a clear bullet structure. No redundant phrases. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., by briefly explaining the action's outcome.
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 an output schema being present, the description does not explain the context or objective of spend_analysis, leaving the agent to guess what a valid 'message' or 'inputs' should contain. For a tool with optional parameters and no guidance, this is insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This goes beyond the bare schema but remains vague—no examples or constraints are given for the objective or expected JSON structure. It is adequate but not rich.
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 tool as running the procurement domain agent action 'spend_analysis'. It specifies the routing mechanism (domain-agent dispatcher) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like procurement_chat or commerce_spend_analysis by focusing on a specific action. However, it does not explain what 'spend analysis' entails, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name alone.
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 state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent would have no context to decide whether this action is appropriate compared to similar procurement or commerce tools listed as 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?
The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, or what side effects occur. With no annotations, this is insufficient 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 short and well-structured, with clear parameter listing. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could include more useful information 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?
Despite having an output schema (context signal), the description does not explain what the action achieves, what success or error responses look like, or how it integrates with the procurement domain. This is a significant gap for a domain-specific tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description adds value by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON structured inputs. However, the descriptions are minimal and lack detail on expected format or constraints.
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 'Run the procurement domain agent action vendor_onboarding,' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, it does not explain what vendor onboarding entails, limiting the agent's understanding of the tool's purpose. Sibling tools like procurement_vendor_risk_assessment exist but are not distinguished.
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 vs. alternatives. The description only mentions the parameters and routing, but does not specify scenarios 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. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe what the analysis does, side effects, permissions needed, or output behavior. This is inadequate for a mutation-like 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 concise with two sentences and a bullet list. It front-loads the purpose and then explains routing and parameters. Every part is relevant, though it could be slightly more compact.
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?
The tool is complex (an analysis action) but the description does not explain what the analysis does, what the output contains, or any prerequisites. There is an output schema, but its content is not visible, so the description should provide more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema, but lacks examples or constraints on format.
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 runs the product domain agent action 'assortment_gap_analysis', specifying the verb 'run' and the resource. It implies domain distinction from sibling 'commerce_assortment_gap_analysis', though no explicit differentiation is made.
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 vs alternatives. The sibling list includes a very similar tool 'commerce_assortment_gap_analysis', and the description does not explain when product domain is appropriate over commerce domain.
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 discloses routing and auth scoping but fails to state whether the action is read-only or mutating, side effects, or rate limits. Behavioral traits beyond the basic routing 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with three clear sections: action identification, routing context, and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured.
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 (running a domain agent action), the description omits critical context: what the action returns (output schema exists but not described), prerequisites, or practical examples. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without more information.
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 compensate. It describes 'message' as 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string', adding meaning beyond the schema's title and default. However, it lacks specifics like expected JSON structure or constraints.
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 it runs the 'customer_segment' action in the product domain, differentiating it from sibling tools like commerce_customer_segment. However, it does not explain what the action accomplishes, leaving the purpose 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?
The description mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which is authentication context, not usage guidance. There is no indication of when to use this tool vs alternatives like commerce_customer_segment or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which addresses authorization, but does not disclose side effects, rate limits, error behavior, or whether the action is read-only or mutating.
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 at three sentences plus an arg list. It front-loads the main purpose and uses clear structure. There is no redundancy or 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?
Despite having an output schema (so return values are covered), the description lacks important context for a domain agent action. It does not explain what the action does, how to interpret results, or how this tool fits with siblings like commerce_trend_synthesis. The agent needs more completeness to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds brief explanations for both parameters: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This provides useful context beyond the raw schema, though it remains minimal.
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 is to run a specific domain agent action named 'trend_synthesis' for the product domain. However, it does not explain what 'trend_synthesis' accomplishes or how it differs from sibling tools like 'commerce_trend_synthesis', leaving some ambiguity about its specific 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or when not to use it. The agent is left without context to decide between this and similar trend synthesis tools across other domains.
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. However, it only states the function without disclosing return format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not utilized to add context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences and an argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the argument list repeats information already in the schema with minimal added value, and the structure could be improved by integrating parameter info into the prose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and three optional parameters, the description omits important context such as filtering logic, default date ranges, and result ordering. It is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps for effective agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description provides the only parameter documentation. It adds basic format hints for dates ('YYYY-MM-DD') and a brief description for max_results. While helpful, it does not explain constraints, defaults beyond the schema, or relationships between 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 tool lists QuickBooks payments and specifies the purpose ('cash movement and reconciliation analysis'). It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('QuickBooks payments'), distinguishing it from other list tools within the QuickBooks domain, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or when it is appropriate to use over other list tools (e.g., quickbooks_list_invoices). The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 states basic functionality. It doesn't mention whether messages include thread replies, rate limits, pagination, or authentication requirements. The channel parameter's behavior is underspecified given the schema's default null.
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?
Very concise with a clear one-line purpose and parameter list. The mismatch between 'required' and default null is a structural flaw, but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return format. However, it lacks operational context like pagination, time zone for timestamps, and channel scope requirements. The explanation of oldest format is helpful but incomplete.
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?
Adds some meaning beyond schema: channel is an ID, limit is max messages, oldest is a timestamp in Slack format. However, the description says channel is required while the schema allows null, creating confusion. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates.
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?
States it fetches recent messages from a Slack channel, which is clear and distinguishes from other Slack tools like slack_get_thread_replies. However, the term 'recent' is somewhat vague without specifying the default time range, and the mention of 'channel (required)' conflicts with the schema's default null.
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 slack_search_messages or slack_get_thread_replies. No prerequisites or context about required bot scopes 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?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is idempotent. The phrase 'the bot can access' is vague and does not clarify the bot's current state or success criteria.
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, using a short sentence and a minimal argument list. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it sacrifices completeness (e.g., no return value, no error conditions) for 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 simple tool (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description should cover return values and clarify the optionality conflict. It fails to explain when the operation succeeds, what the output contains, or how to handle errors. The mismatch between 'required' and schema optionality undermines completeness.
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 description adds 'Channel ID or name' which provides format guidance beyond the schema's title. However, it claims the parameter is 'required' while the schema has no 'required' field and defaults to null, creating a contradiction. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but introduces an error.
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 ('Join') and resource ('public Slack channel'), and the tool name reinforces this. However, the phrase 'the bot can access' creates ambiguity about whether the bot must already have access or is requesting to join, and it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like slack_invite_to_channel or slack_create_channel.
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 (e.g., for private channels, use slack_invite_to_channel). The description only states what the tool does, not the context 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 carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic listing operation, such as rate limits, pagination, authentication requirements, or what happens if the bot cannot see certain channels.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is present but somewhat incomplete. Overall, it is efficient and free of unnecessary words.
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 an output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks important guidance on usage context and behavioral details. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description provides partial parameter information: it explains that 'types' is comma-separated and lists valid values, which adds value beyond the schema. However, 'exclude_archived' is only named without explanation, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description should do more to compensate.
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 ('channels'), and specifies the scope ('the Slack workspace bot can see'). It is distinct from sibling tools like slack_list_channel_members or slack_get_channel_history, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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 mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and description 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 carry the full burden. It mentions routing and JWT scope but fails to disclose whether the tool is read-only, if pagination is supported, output format, or rate limits. Key behavioral traits 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (3 sentences) and covers routing and arguments without clutter. It is efficient but could be more informative 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 tool has an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks essential context: what users are listed (all members? active only?), how to use arguments for filtering, and real-world usage examples. The tool is simple but the description is incomplete.
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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments', adding some meaning beyond the bare schema (which has 0% coverage). However, it does not specify expected keys like cursor or limit, leaving the agent to guess the 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 name 'slack_list_users' clearly indicates listing users from Slack. The description states it's a 'Slack connector operation' and explains the routing. However, it does not differentiate from sibling Slack user tools like slack_lookup_user or slack_users_info.
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 (e.g., requires authentication, lists all workspace members). The agent must infer usage without explicit direction.
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 only mentions routing details and the argument format. With no annotations, it fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns all contacts, pagination behavior, required permissions, or rate limits. The agent is left guessing about the tool's actual behavior beyond its 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 brief (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary details, though the routing information could be considered secondary. Overall, it is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.
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?
For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown but present), the description covers the essential function and routing. However, it could mention that the tool returns a list of contacts and possibly include a note about typical usage. Still, given the presence of an output schema, the agent can infer return structure.
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 one parameter 'arguments' with no description, and the description merely restates it as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. This adds no insight into what fields or filters the arguments might contain. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but 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 lists contacts via the Smokeball connector. The verb 'list' and resource 'contacts' are explicit. However, it does not differentiate this tool from other Smokeball list tools such as smokeball_list_matters or smokeball_list_tasks, nor from other list_contacts tools in sibling list.
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 smokeball_get_contact for a single contact or smokeball_search for broader queries. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for using this tool.
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 mentions routing through an API and auth scope (JWT, tenant, company), but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or data freshness. The minimal info leaves the agent uncertain about impacts.
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 short (three sentences) and front-loaded with the tool name and routing info. It avoids unnecessary detail, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing essential usage 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?
The tool is a list operation with one parameter, and an output schema exists. However, the description omits details like what constitutes a lead, default ordering, pagination, filtering, and error conditions. The agent is left with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
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 description adds that the 'arguments' parameter is a JSON string, which provides some meaning beyond the schema (which has no description). However, it does not specify expected keys or structure, leaving the parameter vague despite 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it is a 'list_leads' operation for Smokeball, so the purpose is clear from the name. However, the description itself does not explicitly state that it retrieves a list of leads, relying on the tool name. Among siblings like smokeball_list_contacts and smokeball_list_matters, the name distinguishes it well.
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 filtering capabilities, prerequisites, or comparison to similar tools like smokeball_search or smokeball_list_contacts.
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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, synchronization, or the nature of the return value. The behavioral information is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.
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 very concise: two sentences plus an args list. It is front-loaded with the core action and routing context. No unnecessary 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or behavior. The tool likely has significant effects (resource assignment), but the description lacks details on suitable objectives, constraints, and asynchronous behavior. It is incomplete for an agent to make informed usage decisions.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description carries the full burden. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, adding basic semantics beyond the schema. However, it could specify expected JSON format or provide examples, making it minimally helpful.
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 'Run the solver domain agent action assign_resources', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. The action name implies resource assignment, and the description adds context about routing and scope. However, it could more explicitly explain what 'assign resources' means in practice, but it is generally clear.
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 sibling solver tools such as solver_schedule_optimization or solver_solve_optimization. The description does not provide context for selection 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives some authentication context, but it does not describe side effects, data modifications, or what 'plan_domain_intelligence' entails. The action's behavior remains opaque.
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 a clear Args section. It avoids unnecessary detail, though it could benefit from a brief explanation of what the action does. Overall, it is well-structured 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context: it does not explain the purpose of 'plan_domain_intelligence', what side effects occur, or how the output is structured. The agent cannot fully understand the tool's role or when to invoke it, given the many similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Free-text objective' for message and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs' for inputs, providing slight meaning beyond the schema titles. However, this is minimal and does not specify format constraints or valid 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 tool runs the 'plan_domain_intelligence' action for the solver domain. The verb 'Run' and specific resource are present, but it does not differentiate from the many sibling tools like coding_plan_domain_intelligence or commerce_plan_domain_intelligence, which share similar names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 alternative 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools. No context about the solver domain, prerequisites, or exclusions is given, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses routing through '/api/tools/invoke' under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing authentication context. However, with no annotations, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving gaps in 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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the tool identity and routing info. There is no fluff, but the parameter description is too brief, sacrificing clarity for 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description lacks essential detail about the argument structure and usage context. It does not differentiate from siblings or explain how to properly construct the JSON argument, making it incomplete for effective tool 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation'. This is vague and does not explain what keys (e.g., location IDs, filters) the JSON should contain, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name and description clearly indicate it lists Square locations. The description states 'Square connector operation list_locations' and mentions the platform tool ID. While not overly explicit, the purpose is evident and distinguishable from sibling tools like square_list_customers or square_list_payments.
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 other list tools or any prerequisites. There is no mention of context, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, error handling, or the behavior when customer_id is invalid. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic listing operation.
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 the parameter list is incomplete (limit description missing). The main purpose is stated in a single sentence, which is efficient, but the structued parameter documentation is not fully provided, reducing clarity.
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?
The tool is a simple list with optional filters, and an output schema exists, so return value details are covered. However, the description does not address potential issues like pagination, ordering, or handling of large result sets, which are important for a list endpoint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds value by listing allowed values for 'status' (draft, open, paid, uncollectible, void) but provides no description for 'limit' (missing value) and only repeats the parameter name for 'customer_id'. It adds some meaning but is incomplete.
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 'List Stripe invoices, optionally scoped to a customer,' which identifies the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like stripe_create_invoice or stripe_get_invoice by name, but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., stripe_get_invoice for a single invoice). There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or alternative 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?
The description does not disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, or irreversibility of the rejection. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but fails to add meaningful context 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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 the presence of an output schema, the description is still too minimal. It fails to explain what rejection means operationally (e.g., effects on other processes, whether it can be undone) and does not help the agent understand the tool's place in the Stripe orchestration workflow.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (approval_id and reason). The agent must infer the meaning of these parameters from the schema alone, which is insufficient.
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 'Reject a pending Stripe orchestrator decision.' clearly states the action (reject) and the resource (pending Stripe orchestrator decision), and effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling tools such as stripe_approve and stripe_execute_approved.
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 stripe_approve or when decisions are not pending. There are no explicit context indications 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?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavior. It only states 'high-level composite workflow' without explaining side effects, resource mutations, permissions, or operational impact. The workflow names hint at actions like recovery and outreach, but no explicit 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes the essential information in a readable format. It could be more structured with bullet points or subheadings, but it is concise and functional.
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 having only one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks contextual completeness. It does not explain the output, behavior, or when to invoke this tool. For a composite workflow tool, more context on the orchestrated steps is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the parameter is simply a string. The description adds the allowed workflow values, which clarifies the input. However, it does not describe what each workflow does or any constraints beyond the list.
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 runs a high-level composite workflow and lists four specific workflow names, making the purpose well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling stripe tools that may have overlapping 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like individual stripe API tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to avoid, or comparison with other workflow-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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool triggers a workflow and describes parameters. It does not disclose whether the action is synchronous, what the return value is (though an output schema exists), side effects, or success/failure behavior. The trigger nature implies a mutation but no safety guarantees are articulated.
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: one sentence plus a clear Args list. Every word serves a purpose. The structure is easy to parse for an AI agent. No superfluous 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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and parameter meanings but omits behavioral details, return value implications, and integration context. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return value explanation, but the description does not reference it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter: workflow_type (with example), objective (purpose), and inputs (optional JSON string). This adds meaning beyond the bare property names and types, but it is minimal and does not enumerate valid types or format constraints.
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 triggers a workflow execution, with a specific verb 'Trigger' and resource 'workflow execution'. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like github_trigger_workflow or stripe_run_workflow, which are for specific systems. The example workflow_type 'enterprise_document_intelligence' hints at a specific workflow engine 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. The description lists parameters but gives no context about the workflow system or when to prefer this over other trigger tools. Users must infer usage from the parameter descriptions 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to describe what the action does, side effects, or expected outcomes. Critical for a financial 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 brief and front-loaded with the action name. The Args section is cleanly formatted. No extraneous content, though it could be more structured.
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 having an output schema, the description lacks context about the tool's purpose and expected behavior. For a complex wealth advisory action, more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. However, it does not clarify valid values, formats, or examples, leaving ambiguity.
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 runs a specific domain agent action 'wealth_tax_loss_harvest', which is a distinct verb-resource combination. It differentiates from sibling tools by being a named action within the wealth_advisory domain, but it does not explain what tax loss harvesting 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other wealth_advisory tools. There are no context signals or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Generate Xero proposals' but does not explain what generation entails (e.g., creates a proposal document, runs a process), side effects, authorization needs, or output format. The description is too brief to provide adequate 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 concise: a single sentence and an Args line. The structure is clear, with the action statement followed by parameter details. It is not verbose, though it could benefit from more structure while remaining efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the one-parameter schema and presence of an output schema (not visible), the description lacks completeness. It does not specify valid proposal kinds, output behavior, or differentiation from sibling tools. The context signals indicate many similar Xero tools, yet no guidance is given, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds an Args line explaining that 'body' is an optional JSON object with an example ('{"kind": "bank_reconciliation"}'), which provides context beyond the schema. However, it does not enumerate valid 'kind' values or specify the full expected structure, leaving gaps.
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 'Generate Xero proposals (reconciliation, AP, payroll, etc.)', clearly indicating the verb and resource. It provides examples of proposal types. However, the presence of sibling tools like 'xero_agent_create_proposal' and 'xero_agent_reject_proposal' creates ambiguity between 'generate' and 'create', lacking 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 is provided. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar siblings like 'xero_agent_create_proposal'. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Propose' (write action) and 'HITL-gated' (requires human in loop), but lacks details on reversibility, authorization needs, post-proposal workflow, or what happens upon success/failure.
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 (two clauses) and front-loads the action. While concise, it omits critical information (e.g., JSON structure, intended use vs alternative tools), making it under-specified rather than efficiently brief.
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 (1 param, no nested objects) and presence of an output schema, the description still fails to convey enough context. Missing: expected JSON schema, what 'propose' means process-wise, and how the tool differs from xero_create_invoice.
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% with one 'body' parameter of type string. The description adds that 'Body is JSON', clarifying the format. However, it fails to specify the required JSON structure (e.g., invoice fields, required keys), leaving the agent underspecified.
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 it proposes an AR invoice into Xero and mentions 'HITL-gated', distinguishing it from xero_create_invoice (direct creation). The verb 'Propose' and acronym 'AR' make the specific resource and action clear.
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 xero_create_invoice. The 'HITL-gated' hint suggests it's for proposals requiring human approval, but no direct comparison or when-not-to-use advice 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses routing and scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but omits critical traits such as whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, context note, and parameter list. However, it could be more concise by omitting the routing detail that may be inferred from the domain-agent dispatcher 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?
Despite having two parameters and no annotations, the description does not cover the tool's return value (output schema exists but is ignored), side effects, or typical usage patterns. The description is incomplete for effective use.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds clear semantics beyond parameter names, though more detail on expected input format would improve it.
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 runs a specific domain agent action 'process_single_ticket' and mentions routing through a dispatcher. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'coding_process_ticket_with_branch', and the action's purpose is not elaborated beyond the 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. The description provides no context for selection, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but omits critical behavioral details like synchronous vs asynchronous execution, side effects on environment, or test result handling.
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 a clear opening sentence and an Args section. No wasted words, though the Args listing could be streamlined. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 an output schema existing, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., test results). Important behavioral details for a test runner are missing, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions), but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This significantly clarifies parameter purpose beyond the bare 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 the verb 'Run' and resource 'tests', clearly indicating it executes tests. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other coding run tools like coding_run_command or coding_run_pipeline, relying on the action name alone.
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 lacks context for preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope (implying authentication), but does not describe what the action actually does (e.g., whether it is read-only, mutates data, incurs costs, has latency, or returns specific data). The agent is left to infer behavior from the tool name alone.
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, using only four lines to convey the primary purpose and parameter meanings. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Run the commerce domain agent action'). However, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters) for readability. Still, every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.
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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description fails to provide sufficient context about what the action does (market research on what domain? what kind of output?). It only explains the routing mechanics. Sibling tools with similar names (e.g., `commerce_category_landscape`) suggest overlapping functionality, but the description does not help the agent decide. The context is incomplete for confident selection.
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 provides only parameter titles (Message, Inputs) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating: 'message: Free-text objective for the action.' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds meaningful semantics, clarifying that inputs are optional and structured as JSON. Although it could further specify the expected JSON structure, it significantly improves understanding over the raw 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 runs the commerce domain agent action `external_market_research`. The tool name itself is descriptive, and the description reinforces the purpose by specifying it is routed through a platform dispatcher. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling commerce tools like `commerce_category_landscape` or `commerce_pricing_intelligence`, which could also involve research. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any indication of prerequisites, context, or scenarios. It only describes the routing mechanism, not the appropriate usage conditions. Without usage guidance, an agent may misuse 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher and authentication context, but it does not reveal whether the action is read-only, what side effects it has, rate limits, or the nature of its outputs. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the implications of calling this 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 brief and front-loaded, with the action clearly stated in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: purpose, routing context, and parameter explanations. There is no wasted text, though slightly more detail on the action itself would be welcome.
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 having an output schema (which covers return values), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what supply chain analysis does, what kind of results to expect, or any constraints. For a tool that runs a potentially complex analysis, this lack of context makes it hard for an agent to decide whether to use it.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's default values and titles. It could be improved by specifying expected structure of the inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: running the commerce domain agent action `supply_chain_analysis`. The verb 'Run' and the resource name are specific, and the tool name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like `commerce_assortment_gap_analysis` or `commerce_demand_forecast`. However, it lacks a brief explanation of what supply chain analysis actually entails, so it's not a 5.
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. The description only explains routing mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) but not the context in which supply chain analysis is appropriate or when to choose it over other commerce 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 bears full responsibility. It notes that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds some context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs read-only or destructive actions, what side effects occur, or any rate limits or authentication requirements beyond the implied scope.
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 very concise: a single sentence stating the action, a line about routing, and a clear Args section. Every element serves a purpose without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the tool's name and immediately explains what it does.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a packet document, summary). For a tool that runs an agent action, more context about the expected outcome and behavior would be beneficial. The description is adequate but leaves gaps about the result.
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% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'message' is described as 'Free-text objective for the action', and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action'. This clarifies the purpose and format beyond the schema's default values and types.
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 runs a finance due diligence packet agent action, which indicates a specific function, but it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'finance_due_diligence' or 'finance_data_room_collation_packet'. The verb 'Run' is vague, and the resource 'due diligence packet' is not explained in terms of what it produces or modifies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool 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?
Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company) but does not state whether the action is mutating, idempotent, or has side effects. The word 'replan' implies changes, but this is not confirmed.
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 short and includes essential information (scope, parameters). However, the sentence about routing through the dispatcher could be considered implementation detail and may not be necessary for an agent to use the tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description fails to provide context on how this tool fits into the goal lifecycle (e.g., when to replace an existing plan) and does not mention any side effects or required prerequisites.
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 description explains both parameters: message as free-text objective and inputs as optional JSON structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which has no descriptions, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it runs a finance domain agent action named 'goal_replan', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like finance_goal_plan or finance_goal_understand, leaving ambiguity about what 'replan' specifically 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description only explains the routing mechanism, not the use case.
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 mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, but does not specify if the action is read-only, destructive, or other side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only three lines of content: a purpose line, a routing context line, and parameter descriptions. No waste.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks information about what the control_testing action does, which is needed for an agent to decide when to invoke it. The routing and parameter info are present, but the action's purpose is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema.
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 'Run the grc domain agent action `control_testing`' which identifies a verb and resource, but does not explain what control_testing does. Among sibling tools, it stands out as running a specific action, but the lack of context on the action's purpose makes it somewhat 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other GRC tools, but no comparison or criteria 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any rate limits. The safety profile 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and to the point, with a clear lead sentence and an args list. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured, but it is appropriately sized for a simple chat tool.
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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks essential context: typical use cases, limitations, integration with other HR tools, and expected behavior. For a chat tool that may handle complex HR queries, this is insufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults. Both parameters are well-covered.
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 'Run the hr domain agent action `chat`, specifying the domain and action. It distinguishes from sibling chat tools like 'commerce_chat' by prefixing with 'hr'. However, it does not elaborate on what the chat action actually does beyond running a free-text objective, so it could be more explicit.
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 hr_lookup, hr_pulse, or other domain-specific chat tools. The description only explains routing mechanics (JWT, tenant, company scope) but not selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope but does not disclose whether the action is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 brief (three sentences) and to the point, with no unnecessary verbosity. It could be more structured but is efficient for its 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to convey what the cash_application_plan action actually accomplishes, its domain relevance, or expected outcomes. This makes it hard for an agent to determine applicability among many similar tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This clarifies the parameters beyond their schema 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 clearly states it runs a specific domain agent action 'cash_application_plan', providing a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from many other intuit sibling tools, so the purpose is clear but not contextually unique.
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 specify appropriate scenarios or exclude cases, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
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 authentication context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but fails to describe side effects (e.g., what gets created, modified, or destroyed), idempotency, or error handling. The nature of domain agent actions is opaque, and this description adds little beyond routing.
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 plus an args list. It is front-loaded with the primary action. However, the structure could be improved by separating key details (e.g., return value) from routing 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?
For a domain agent action with an output schema (not referenced), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, typical use cases, and what the reconciliation process entails. Given the tool's potential complexity and the absence of annotation support, more context is needed.
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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides clear explanations for both parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though 'free-text objective' is somewhat vague.
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 runs the 'reconcile_payments' action, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what reconciliation entails, leaving ambiguity about its exact function. It lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'intuit_cash_application_plan' or 'intuit_close_packet', which also perform domain-specific 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and similar intuit domain actions. The description only states routing details, which are not usage guidelines.
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. It notes routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects ('loop' implies iterative changes) occur.
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 minimal redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action name and clearly lists the arguments. The sentence about routing adds useful authentication 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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description lacks completeness for a complex tool named 'loop'. It does not explain what the loop does, what outcomes to expect, or any behavioral details beyond routing. The 0% schema coverage makes this gap more significant.
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 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 runs the 'autocompany_software_engineering_loop' domain agent action, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'it_ops_software_engineering_loop'. However, it doesn't explain what the action accomplishes beyond running it.
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 other it_ops loops or domain-specific tools. The description gives no 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?
Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions routing through a dispatcher and scope. It fails to describe execution behavior, permissions, side effects, or what the action actually does, which is insufficient for an execution 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 relatively concise at about 4 sentences, but it contains some repetition regarding routing. Every sentence adds some value, though it could be more tightly written without losing clarity.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return values need not be described. However, the description lacks essential context about the AWS CLI action being executed, its capabilities, permissions, or possible outcomes. This is a significant gap for an execution tool with no annotations.
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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds clear semantics: `message` is 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This provides useful meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.
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 runs the `aws_cli_execute` domain agent action, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool `it_ops_aws_cli`, which may have similar functionality, causing potential confusion for an AI agent selecting the correct tool.
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 `it_ops_aws_cli` or `it_ops_aws_account_control`. The description lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making 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?
The description mentions routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, providing minimal auth context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool performs read, write, or other side effects, nor any rate limits or cost implications, which is a gap given no annotations are 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: two sentences and two bullet-point args with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent 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?
Given the tool is a simple chat action with an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on appropriate use cases or limitations, which is notable given the many specialized sibling tools. It is minimally viable but could be more complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining both parameters: 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, though examples or constraints would further improve clarity.
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 'Run[s] the it_ops domain agent action chat,' indicating a generic conversational tool for IT operations. However, 'chat' is vague and does not differentiate it from many other it_ops tools (e.g., it_ops_incident_response) or domain-specific chat tools (e.g., commerce_chat, engineering_chat), so its specific purpose is unclear.
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 sibling tools (e.g., it_ops_monitoring_check, it_ops_aws_cli) or when not to use it. The description only explains what the tool does without any 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It does not describe side effects, destructive potential, idempotency, rate limits, or error scenarios. The action name 'deployment' suggests mutation, but the description doesn't confirm.
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 short sentences plus a brief list of parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose: identifying the action, routing context, and parameter definitions. No unnecessary words.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple action runner but lacks information on the action's output/return value (despite an output schema existing, not shown here). It also does not explain how 'message' and 'inputs' interact or what constitutes a valid input. For a deployment tool, more context on expected behavior would be helpful.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds useful context beyond the schema's default values and types, though more detail on valid JSON structure would improve clarity.
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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `deployment`' which is nearly tautological. It adds routing context but fails to specify what the deployment action accomplishes (e.g., deploying software, infrastructure). This vagueness makes it hard to distinguish from other it_ops tools like 'it_ops_cloud_delivery_setup' or 'it_ops_open_iac_pr'.
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 mention prerequisites, preconditions, or when not to use. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for production deployments, testing, or specific environments.
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 cover behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, nor does it describe pagination, rate limits, or what happens with invalid JQL. The description is too minimal 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 short but incomplete. The args section abruptly ends with 'max_results: ' and no further detail. While brevity is good, the missing information makes it 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention pagination, result ordering, or limitations of JQL search. Given the tool's complexity (JQL syntax, defaults), the description lacks sufficient context for reliable agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds an example for 'jql' but leaves 'max_results' with no explanation after the colon. The description adds marginal meaning 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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'Jira issues with JQL', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like jira_get_issue (single issue) or jira_list_issue_types (list types) by specifying JQL-based search.
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 JQL example but fails to explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a specific issue key is known, use jira_get_issue). No guidance on use cases or exclusions 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions drafting from templates but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing documents, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects of invocation.
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?
Description is relatively concise: one sentence defining action plus list of parameters. No unnecessary words, but the parameter list could be more structured (e.g., table format) and fails to include parameter types or constraints.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values are partially covered. However, description omits important context like how templates are selected, whether the result is a document preview or final file, and how to retrieve the output. For a drafting tool, more detail on workflow and expected result 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?
Description adds basic meaning to three parameters (document_type='label', brief='Plain-English brief', counterparty='name') but contradicts schema by marking document_type and brief as required while schema shows they are optional (nullable with default null). Message parameter is vaguely described as 'free-text objective'. Schema coverage is 0%, so description partially compensates but with inconsistency.
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 action (draft) and resource (legal document) with examples (NDA, MSA, etc.). It differentiates from sibling tools like legal_contract_review and legal_nda_packet by focusing on generic drafting, but does not explicitly contrast.
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 use when a brief and templates are available, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use criteria or alternatives among many sibling legal tools. No exclusions or contextual guidance 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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing via the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not indicate side effects, performance characteristics, or whether the action is read-only or destructive. The agent cannot assess potential impacts of invocation.
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 at three sentences and front-loads the primary action. The middle sentence about routing could be considered extraneous, but does not significantly bloat the description.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameters, but given the tool likely triggers a complex legal process (DPIA), it omits crucial context like what constitutes a valid objective, how outputs are structured (despite having an output schema), and any prerequisites. This leaves the agent underinformed for effective invocation.
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 description provides clear semantics for each parameter: message is a 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default information. However, it lacks detail on expected JSON structure or constraints.
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 'Run the legal domain agent action `dpia`' which clearly identifies the tool's primary function: executing a specific legal action. The acronym 'dpia' is typical in legal contexts (likely Data Protection Impact Assessment) but not expanded, which slightly reduces clarity for unfamiliar agents.
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 other legal tools like legal_breach_response or legal_contract_review. The description only states what the tool does without any context on use cases or 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?
The description mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, error handling, or expected response behavior, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences. The first sentence introduces the action, the second adds routing context, and the third lists parameters. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the parameter list could be more structured.
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 a loop action with an output schema, the description lacks details on loop behavior, completion criteria, and return values. It does not fully contextualize the tool's purpose within the legal domain, making it incomplete for an agent.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies intent and usage for both parameters, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs the 'legal domain agent action partnership_onboarding_loop', identifying a specific verb and resource. It also explains routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher. However, it does not describe the outcome or loop behavior, which could be clearer.
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 legal_contract_review or legal_matter_intake. The description lacks context for typical use cases 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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope and fails to describe side effects (e.g., creating or modifying opposition drafts), permissions required, or rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is obvious.
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 (under 50 words) with front-loaded purpose and clear parameter listings. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the technical routing detail could be condensed.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not mention return values, error conditions, or expected behavior. For a domain agent action that likely generates a draft, this omission leaves the agent unaware of what to expect from the invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adequately explains both parameters: message is a free-text objective, inputs is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type/title.
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 'Run' and the resource 'legal domain agent action `tm_opposition_draft`', which is clear and distinct from siblings like `legal_tm_clearance_search`. However, it does not explain what 'tm_opposition_draft' actually does (e.g., draft a trademark opposition), relying on the tool name's domain knowledge.
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 scenarios, prerequisites, or which sibling tools to prefer for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read-only operation via 'List', but does not disclose ordering, pagination, limits, or side effects. With no annotations, the agent must infer safety. The verb itself is strong, but no additional context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. No wasteful words, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) is acceptable for such a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) and potential filters. It is minimally viable 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?
The sole parameter 'task_id' has no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description mentions 'against an AutoCompany task', hinting at the parameter's role, but does not explain format, how to obtain it, or validation. More detail is needed.
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 'List events recorded against an AutoCompany task' which clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_aoc_tasks' (lists tasks) and 'post_aoc_task_event' (creates events), though it does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, context for optimal use, or exclude cases (e.g., 'use this to retrieve events, not to create them').
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 does not state that the tool is read-only, lacks mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or pagination. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavioral 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 relatively concise with two paragraphs, but the page_size parameter has no actual description (just a colon and newline). This incompleteness reduces clarity. Structure is acceptable but not exemplary.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to mention that the tool is read-only, contradicts the schema by marking database_id as required when it is optional, and omits information about pagination or response format. For a query tool with 4 parameters, this is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning (e.g., 'Notion filter object as a JSON string') but lacks detail on expected JSON structures and does not clarify that database_id is optional (schema allows null, but description says 'required'). The truncated page_size description is also unhelpful.
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 queries rows in a Notion database with filters and sorts. It uses a specific verb ('query') and identifies the resource ('rows in a Notion database'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like notion_search which search across pages.
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 notion_query_data or notion_search. The description lists parameters but offers no context on when filtering/sorting is appropriate 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action ('stop') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is destructive, if confirmation is needed, rate limits, or what happens to associated resources. The description 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (stop a run, one parameter), the description provides the core purpose but lacks context about effects, return value (though output schema exists), and prerequisites. It is minimally adequate but could be improved.
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 no descriptions for its single parameter 'run_id' (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, such as format, how to obtain it, or constraints. This is insufficient.
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 specific resource ('in-flight AutoCompany cognitive-loop run'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_aoc_run (retrieves run info) and list_aoc_runs (lists runs).
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_aoc_run or validate_aoc_run_config. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., run must be in-flight) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't explicitly confirm no side effects, mention permissions, rate limits, or data size. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. Parenthetical list efficiently conveys scope. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return details are covered. However, no description of what 'state, surfaces, recent runs' actually contain, or any constraints. Adequate for a simple tool but could be improved.
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 schema has no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what 'domain' means, expected format, or examples. Adds no 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('domain workspace data bundle'), and parenthetically lists the included components (state, surfaces, recent runs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_surface and workspace_trace.
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., workspace_surface for a specific surface, or workspace_trace for a trace). Absence of when-not-to-use or contextual cues makes it hard for an agent to choose correctly.
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 the full burden. It only states the purpose and role values, but does not disclose behavior such as whether email or user_id is required, duplicate handling, error conditions, or success response. 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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. However, it is too terse and could include more guidance (e.g., required identification fields) 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?
With 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema not provided, the description omits critical context: how to specify the collaborator (email vs user_id), error handling, and return value. Incomplete for a mutating tool of this complexity.
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%, but the description only adds value for the role parameter by listing valid values (viewer | editor | admin). No clarification for workspace_id, email, or user_id, leaving the agent uncertain about how to identify the collaborator.
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 (Add), resource (collaborator), target (workspace), and specifies valid roles (viewer | editor | admin). Easily distinguishable from sibling tools like remove_collaborator and update_collaborator.
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 by stating the action, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_collaborator for role changes) and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., workspace existence, user identification requirements).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the behavioral trait of visibility to collaborators, which is helpful. However, no annotations are provided to cover safety or limitations; the description partially compensates but lacks details on permissions, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core action and a key trait. No unnecessary words—every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple append operation with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the primary purpose. However, it lacks context on whether the note is appended to a list or merged, whether it's idempotent, or if there are size limits. Adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage, the description should explain parameter meaning, but it only implicitly describes 'content' as the note text and 'workspace_id' as the target. No details on format, constraints, or examples are provided, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.
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 (append a note) and the resource (workspace), and adds visibility context ('visible to collaborators'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like code_workspace_chat or code_workspace_add_collaborator, but does not explicitly differentiate or exclude other note-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when-not-to-use or alternative tools for related actions like adding collaborators or chatting.
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, pagination, filtering, or any side effects. The single sentence offers minimal transparency 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 is well-structured for a simple list operation, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description is adequate for a straightforward list. However, the meaning of 'code-change proposals' is vague, and no context about the source or format is provided, leaving gaps for an 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 input schema has one parameter (workspace_id) with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it only repeats that the proposals are 'for a workspace', which is already implied by the parameter name.
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 ('List') and the resource ('code-change proposals') scoped to a workspace. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like code_workspace_proposal_apply and code_workspace_proposal_reject, which perform different actions on proposals.
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, prerequisites, or when not to use it. It lacks any usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to decide between this and similar listing 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires authorization beyond JWT scope, or has side effects. The routing details are present but insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear bullet list of args. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded and easy to scan. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description is not required to explain return values. However, the tool's behavioral traits are under-described, and input parameter details are minimal. With only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves gaps in understanding the agent's response.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This provides basic semantics beyond the schema's type and default fields, but lacks detail on format, constraints, or examples.
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 runs the 'coding domain agent action `chat`' and explains its routing through a domain-agent dispatcher. The verb 'run' and resource 'coding domain agent action `chat`' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling chat tools like 'code_workspace_chat' or 'engineering_chat', though the domain context provides some disambiguation.
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 specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The context of being the coding domain chat is implied, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information 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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which adds authorization context. However, it does not describe side effects, potential destruction, rate limits, or output behavior, even though an output schema exists.
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 short and front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by bulleted args. Every sentence adds value, though it could benefit from more structured formatting.
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 (runs a pipeline action) and the presence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the pipeline does, its return values, or prerequisites. It is missing contextual details that would help an agent fully understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It briefly explains `message` as free-text objective and `inputs` as optional JSON string, adding some meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks format details and does not cover all aspects of 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 states it runs the coding domain agent action `run_pipeline` and explains the routing scope, which gives a clear verb+resource. However, it does not describe what a 'pipeline' is in this context, lacking differentiation from sibling tools like coding_run_command.
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 coding_run_tests or coding_process_ticket_with_branch. The description does not provide 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions auth routing but fails to state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what a typical response looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise: two sentences plus two parameter lines. It front-loads the purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence is necessary.
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 (2 params, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about the output format, how results are returned, and how to choose this over similar tools. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields, helping the agent understand 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 it runs the coding domain agent action 'search', specifying verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings (no other 'coding_search' tool), but it lacks specificity on what exactly is being searched (code, docs, etc.), which slightly 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like coding_read_code or coding_chat. It only gives implementation details (JWT, tenant, scope) without any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' 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 disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and scoping but fails to indicate whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, or has side effects. The name suggests a monitoring action, but the description offers no confirmation or details.
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?
Description is short with three sentences plus parameter descriptions, well front-loaded. While concise, it could benefit from a more structured format, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 having only two simple parameters and an output schema, the description lacks substantive business context about what a competitor watchlist does. It merely states it runs a domain action, leaving the agent without enough information to determine relevance to the task.
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 compensate. It adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs, providing basic semantic meaning. However, this is minimal and could be more detailed (e.g., example values or constraints).
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 it runs a commerce domain agent action 'competitor_watchlist', identifying the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'product_competitor_watchlist', leaving ambiguity about which to use in which context.
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?
Provides some context by mentioning routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, indicating authentication and scoping requirements. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as the product domain version.
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 routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, adding some behavioral context about authentication and routing. However, it does not disclose side effects, output format, or what happens when the action 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences: one for purpose, one for routing context, then parameter descriptions. There is no redundant information, though the purpose sentence could be more front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained, but the description lacks context about what the 'converse' action actually does in the commerce domain. It is somewhat incomplete for a tool with many siblings.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: 'message' is explained as a free-text objective, and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, this is valuable clarification.
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 runs the 'converse' agent action, but does not explain what 'converse' does in the commerce domain. Among sibling tools like commerce_chat, the purpose is ambiguous. The verb 'Run' is clear, but the resource 'converse' is 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 vs alternatives such as commerce_chat or other commerce agent actions. There is no 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 provided. Description only mentions routing via dispatcher but fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or any behavior beyond invocation 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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus two parameter descriptions. Front-loaded with purpose. 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?
Despite having an output schema, description does not explain what the action returns or its overall behavior. Incomplete for an agent to understand tool's role in inventory valuation.
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?
Adds meaning beyond schema: 'message' is free-text objective, 'inputs' is optional JSON string. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates effectively.
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 runs the commerce domain agent action 'inventory_valuation', with routing details. The name and purpose are specific, but no explicit differentiation from sibling tools like commerce_inventory_check.
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. Missing prerequisites or context for selection among many commerce tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds context about authorization and scoping. However, it does not disclose whether the action has side effects, creates/updates data, or what the operational impact is.
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 short (one sentence plus a paragraph and an Args list). It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes routing context efficiently. No redundant 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?
Despite having an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description lacks explanation of what the 'knowledge_build' action accomplishes, its preconditions, or typical outcomes. The tool appears to perform a significant operation, but the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand its context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'Args' section provides brief explanations for the two parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. With schema coverage at 0%, the description adds basic meaning, but could be more detailed (e.g., expected format, constraints, examples). Sister tools with similar parameter patterns would benefit from richer 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 states 'Run the commerce domain agent action knowledge_build', clearly indicating the tool executes a specific action. The name 'commerce_knowledge_build' distinguishes it from siblings, but the purpose of the underlying 'knowledge_build' action is not elaborated, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. Among many commerce siblings, this omission leaves the agent without selection 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which is helpful for understanding auth context. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, rate limits, or other important behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a clear structure: action name, routing info, and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant 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?
Given the presence of an output schema, lack of return value detail is acceptable. However, for a tool with many siblings in the commerce domain, more context about the type of market observation queries supported would improve completeness. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description's param explanations are critical. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This is adequate but not detailed; it could specify expected format or constraints.
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 runs the 'market_observation_query' action, which is a specific commerce domain agent action. The name and brief explanation distinguish it from siblings like commerce_market_observation_ingest, but no explicit differentiation is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 only describes what it does without indicating suitable contexts or scenarios. There is no mention of 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and authorization scope but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, modifies data, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The agent cannot infer safety or mutation behavior from the description alone.
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: three sentences covering the action, routing context, and parameter definitions. No redundant or irrelevant content. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded for quick understanding.
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 having an output schema (which reduces the burden of describing return values), the description omits critical context about the tool's purpose, expected outcomes, and domain-specific behavior. It does not explain what 'spend_analysis' actually analyzes or produces. The agent is left without sufficient understanding to invoke it correctly in varied scenarios.
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 compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, but adds no format, examples, or constraints beyond the schema's type. The agent lacks guidance on how to properly formulate the message or structure the inputs.
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: 'Run the commerce domain agent action `spend_analysis`.' It specifies the verb (run) and the resource (spend_analysis), which is distinct from sibling tools like 'commerce_chat' or 'commerce_margin_analysis'. The additional context about routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope adds clarity without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to other commerce tools. The agent is given no context about when 'spend_analysis' is appropriate versus other analytics tools like 'commerce_margin_analysis' or 'commerce_revenue_by_channel'.
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 describes what the tool does but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions needed, error conditions, idempotency, or whether it modifies CRM data. The description only states actions, not behavioral consequences.
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 one short paragraph plus a structured Args block. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is efficient with no redundant text, but the Args block could be integrated more smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (multiple inputs, multiple outputs), the description covers the main purpose and output types (fit score, reasoning, next-best-action). An output schema exists, so return details are covered elsewhere. However, it omits context about prerequisite setups (e.g., ICP definition) and error handling, making it moderately complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions for all four parameters (message, lead_id, lead_email, company_domain) explaining their roles, including that lead_email is an alternative to lead_id. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though some parameter constraints or formats are missing.
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 qualifies a lead against an ICP and grades it (A/B/C/D), and lists what data it pulls and returns. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling CRM tools like crm_enrich_lead or crm_verify_lead, so sibling differentiation is missing.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No 'use this when' or 'instead of X' statements. The description implies it is for lead qualification but does not set clear usage boundaries.
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 explains the routing mechanism and authentication context, but fails to describe the action's side effects, destructiveness, or what actually happens when the action runs. The phrase 'plan_domain_intelligence' is vague, leaving uncertainty about whether it is read-only or creates/modifies 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 concise, with two short paragraphs and a clear Args list. The first sentence immediately states the main action. It avoids unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured or include a brief note on what the action produces.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not detail return values. However, it does not explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' accomplishes beyond running the action. An agent may need to understand the high-level purpose (e.g., generating strategic insights) to invoke it correctly. The description is minimally adequate but lacks conceptual depth.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds clear semantic value by explaining both parameters: message as a 'free-text objective' and inputs as an 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This meaningfully extends beyond the schema's default values 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 clearly states the tool runs the customer_success domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence', with a specific verb and resource. It avoids tautology and distinguishes itself from other domain intelligence tools through the domain prefix, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'coding_plan_domain_intelligence'.
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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT scope, but does not specify the context or decision criteria for selecting this tool over other customer_success or domain intelligence 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?
Without annotations, the description discloses little behavioral information. It mentions routing and scoping but does not state whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects it has, or that it returns a result (despite an output schema existing).
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 fairly concise with two short paragraphs: one for the action and routing, one for args. It is front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Could be slightly more efficient but is generally well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks details on what the 'plan_domain_intelligence' action actually produces or how the plan is used. The tool's purpose is abstract but adequately described for a planning tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. Although the schema has no descriptions, this clarifies purpose. No examples or constraints are given.
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 runs the 'plan_domain_intelligence' action within the deep_research domain agent. It specifies routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like coding_plan_domain_intelligence beyond the domain prefix in the 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other plan_domain_intelligence tools for different domains. The description lacks usage context, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, which is helpful. However, it does not explain the creation lifecycle, whether the action is synchronous or asynchronous, any side effects, or what the output schema contains. The description is adequate 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 four sentences: stating the action, routing context, and two parameter descriptions. It is concise and front-loaded. Each sentence contributes value, though the structure could be improved with clearer separation of concerns.
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 (creating a slide deck via a domain agent) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about output, prerequisites, expected behavior, and differentiation from similar sibling tools. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.
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 the description must compensate. It explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds basic meaning beyond the schema, but it does not describe expected JSON structure, constraints, or examples. For a creation tool, more detailed parameter semantics are needed.
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 creates a slide deck by running a domain agent action. It mentions the action name and the dispatching context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_document or create_report, and the output type is not clarified beyond 'slide deck'.
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., other document intelligence creation tools). There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, and no mention of prerequisites or context for optimal 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 the full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher and JWT/tenant/company scope, but fails to disclose side effects, error behavior, rate limits, or output details. The tool's destructive potential or safety profile is not addressed.
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 paragraphs, front-loaded with the action name, no superfluous information. Every sentence earns its place. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role as a domain agent action dispatcher, the description explains routing and parameters but omits output behavior (even though an output schema exists, it is not referenced or summarized). Missing details on error handling, success conditions, or expected side effects. 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds brief explanations for both parameters: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though depth is limited (no structure for the JSON).
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 runs the engineering domain agent action 'run_clash_analysis'. It specifies the verb (Run) and resource, and adds context about routing and scope. However, it does not contrast with sibling engineering tools, leaving the agent without 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other engineering tools, dispatch_domain_agent). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about appropriate 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It describes routing and arguments but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, or return value nature. Missing essential context for a 'run' 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 concise with two clear sections for purpose and arguments. No superfluous words, but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate for a tool with two optional parameters. However, it lacks context on expected outcomes or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps in completeness.
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?
Parameter descriptions add meaning beyond the schema: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it runs a specific finance domain agent action 'autocompany_finance_loop'. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'finance_autonomous_finance_loop'.
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 only mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not specify context 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'create a pull request' without disclosing side effects (e.g., triggers CI, notifications), permissions needed, or failure modes. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and lists parameters in a bullet-like format, making it easy to scan. However, some parameter descriptions are empty, and the structure could be improved (e.g., removing redundant 'Args:' line).
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?
The tool has an output schema but it is not provided, and the description does not mention return values or behavior. For a creation tool with 5 parameters, lacking details on what is returned or any post-creation effects makes it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief descriptions for some parameters (e.g., repo format, head branch name, base default), but title has an empty description and overall it's minimal. The description adds some value beyond 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 'Create a pull request from a head branch into a base branch.' This specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like github_create_issue and github_merge_pull_request.
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 mentioned (e.g., branch must exist), and no exclusions. The description lacks context for proper tool 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, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or that the operation is read-only. The description carries the full burden for transparency but only states the action, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and efficient, using a single line for purpose followed by a parameter list. No extraneous information, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers the core usage but omits important details like pagination, sorting, ordering, and return value expectations. An output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent with incomplete context for complex queries.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning to each parameter: repo format, state options, and author filter. This significantly aids correct invocation beyond the raw 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 'List pull requests for a repo' with specific verb and resource, and details the repo format and filters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like github_list_issues or github_list_commits, which could lead to confusion when selecting the correct tool.
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 parameter details but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github_get_pull_request or github_list_pull_request_files. It does not specify context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without direction.
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 mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under user scope, which is helpful, but it does not indicate whether the tool is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or what the output looks like. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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 three sentences: the first states the action, the second provides routing context, and the third lists parameters. It is concise and logically structured, though it could be more front-loaded with the action's purpose.
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 no annotations and a hidden output schema, the description omits crucial context: what the tool returns, prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), and when to choose it over siblings like grc_risk_register_scan. It covers only the immediate action and parameters.
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 0% description coverage (only titles and defaults), so the description adds critical meaning. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This clarifies their purpose beyond the bare 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 that the tool runs the 'policy_gap_analysis' domain agent action. While it does not elaborate on what the analysis entails, the verb 'Run' combined with the specific action name conveys the purpose adequately and distinguishes it from sibling tools like grc_compliance_audit or grc_control_testing.
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. The description only mentions routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) and parameter definitions, failing to specify contexts where policy gap analysis is appropriate or how it differs from related grc 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 mentions routing details but does not disclose whether the action is idempotent, destructive, or what happens on failure. The agent lacks key behavioral traits beyond the basic execution fact.
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 three focused sentences covering purpose, routing context, and parameters. No unnecessary words. However, a more structured format (e.g., separating behavior from usage) could improve clarity.
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 2-parameter tool with no required params and an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency, making it only minimally complete. The output schema existence reduces the need to describe return values.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could further clarify the expected format or constraints.
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 runs an 'intuit domain agent action' called `execute_approved_action` and mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like `stripe_execute_approved` or `approve_task`, missing a chance to clarify what makes this action 'approved' or how it relates to other approval workflows.
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 prerequisites, conditions for invocation, or scenarios where another tool should be preferred. The description is purely functional 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?
While the description mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, it does not disclose behaviors like whether the action is synchronous, what side effects occur, or how results are returned. With no annotations, the description carries full burden but remains vague.
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 and an Args section, front-loading the core purpose and routing detail. No unnecessary words, though the structure could be slightly more organized for readability.
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?
The description is adequate for a domain agent action, explaining routing and parameters. However, it lacks details on what 'analyze_cost' specifically entails (e.g., what costs, scope of analysis) and what the output looks like, despite the context indicating an output schema exists.
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 description adds clear semantics to both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured data. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, providing meaningful context beyond type and default.
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 runs the 'analyze_cost' action within the it_ops domain, distinguishing the tool's purpose. However, it could better differentiate from sibling it_ops tools that might run other actions or perform related tasks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent 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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the tool routes through a dispatcher and runs an action, but gives no indication of side effects, auth requirements beyond scope, or whether it is read-only or destructive.
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 very concise—three sentences that immediately state the action, routing context, and parameters. No extraneous information, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context on what a 'design review' entails, typical use cases, or how it relates to other it_ops actions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description adds brief explanations: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This provides some clarity but remains vague, lacking details on expected formats or constraints.
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 ('Run') and the resource ('it_ops domain agent action `design_review`'), indicating a specific action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like `it_ops_analysis_review`, which are similarly structured.
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 context on when to use the tool, only mentioning routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. It offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions JWT, tenant, and company scope but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or potential changes to artifacts. The name implies artifact handoff, but the description is silent on what happens to the artifacts, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively concise with a clear opening sentence and an Args section. It front-loads the core purpose and includes necessary scoping details. There is no wasted text, and the structure is 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return value details are not required. However, the tool is complex and likely has side effects; the description omits prerequisites, error conditions, and behavioral details. It covers basic usage but lacks depth for robust agent decision-making.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is crucial. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action', adding meaning beyond the schema's simple titles and defaults. However, it lacks specifics like valid JSON structure or length constraints.
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 'Run the it_ops domain agent action `domain_artifact_handoff`' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains it routes through the platform's dispatcher, which clarifies the execution mechanism. However, it does not differentiate what 'domain_artifact_handoff' accomplishes compared to other it_ops tools, leading to some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only mentions it routes through the dispatcher but does not specify scenarios or constraints. Sibling tools like `it_ops_analyze_cost` or `it_ops_deployment` have distinct purposes, yet no comparative context 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?
The description mentions routing through the platform's dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds security context. However, without annotations, it fails to disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what the action actually does (e.g., creates a requirement record).
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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently covers routing and parameters without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be more structured.
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 having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the 'product_requirements_intake' action does. The agent is left unaware of the action's core functionality, which is critical for a domain agent tool. This is a significant gap given the complexity and number of sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds basic meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This provides some semantics, but lacks detail on expected formats or examples.
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 the tool runs the 'product_requirements_intake' action, which is clear and specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this action from sibling tools like 'it_ops_analysis_review' or 'it_ops_requirements_capture', relying solely on the action name for 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many sibling tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, 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?
Without annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not reveal whether the action is destructive, requires permissions, or what side effects (e.g., hold removal) occur. This is insufficient for a legal 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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The routing sentence and args list are efficient, though the args section is minimal. 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 complexity of a litigation hold release, the description is sparse. It lacks details on behavior, prerequisites, return values (output schema exists but unmentioned), and how it fits with sibling hold actions. The agent would be underinformed.
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 compensate. It defines 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', adding some meaning beyond the schema but lacking specifics about expected JSON structure 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 clearly states it runs the 'litigation_hold_release' domain agent action, distinguishing it from siblings like 'legal_litigation_hold_issue' and 'legal_litigation_hold_refresh'. The verb 'Run' and specific resource make 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like issue or refresh. Preconditions, postconditions, and context (e.g., existing hold required) are absent, leaving the agent to guess.
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 carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose important traits like idempotency, side effects (e.g., creating records), rate limits, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that likely modifies state.
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 about four sentences and includes a clear args section. It is concise but front-loads the action name and routing context, then lists parameters. Minor overhead: the routing line could be condensed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool runs a domain agent action (potentially long-running), the description does not explain whether it is synchronous, how to track progress, or what the output schema represents. With no annotations, more context about the loop's lifecycle and return behavior would improve completeness.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by defining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the schema's default values and types, helping the agent understand parameter 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 it runs the legal domain agent action 'privacy_incident_response_loop', which is specific to privacy incidents. However, among many similar legal tools (e.g., legal_breach_response, legal_dsar_fulfill), it does not differentiate when to use this tool over others, missing a chance to clarify its unique role.
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 its siblings. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario for invocation.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists live and historical executions and optionally filters by status, but does not disclose authentication needs, effect on state, or output behavior beyond listing. Since it is a read operation, the lack of disclosure is a minor gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose, followed by a brief parameter list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It covers parameters but lacks usage guidance and behavioral context. For a simple list tool, it suffices but could add value with pagination details or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'status' filter values (active, completed, failed, transferred) and 'limit' as 'Max results'. This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, it does not explain default behavior or the meaning of each status.
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 the resource 'voice agent executions', and clarifies it includes both live and historical phone calls. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_voice_execution or list_voice_pending_approvals.
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_voice_execution for a specific execution or list_voice_pending_approvals for pending ones. The description only lists parameters 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List' (a read operation) but omits details like pagination, result limit behavior, timezone handling, or what happens when start/end are null. The output schema is present but the description does not elaborate on 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?
The description is short but contains an incomplete parameter list (top description truncated). The structure is minimal: a one-line summary followed by an Args block that is not fully written. It is not well-polished.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, return value details are not required. However, the description lacks explanation of default behavior (e.g., window when null, top default of 50). It is adequate for a simple list tool but has gaps regarding parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds format hints for 'start' and 'end' (ISO 8601) and names 'top', but the top description is incomplete. This adds some meaning beyond bare schema titles but is not thorough.
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 lists Outlook calendar events on the connected Microsoft 365 calendar. The verb 'List' and resource 'calendar events' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling listing tools (e.g., microsoft_list_emails, microsoft_list_drive_files) by specifying the calendar context. The incomplete top parameter description does not obscure the overall 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other list tools. The agent receives no contextual hints for tool selection beyond the tool name and basic description.
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 only states the action and that modifications is a JSON object, failing to describe side effects, state changes, error conditions, or prerequisites for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two sentences, with no redundant information. Every word adds 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 tool has three required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (unreferenced), the description is insufficient. It omits details about the required parameters execution_id and approval_task_id, and does not explain the return value or behavior beyond the basic action.
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%. The description mentions 'modifications is a JSON object', adding some context beyond the schema's string type, but neglects to explain the roles of 'execution_id' and 'approval_task_id'. This does not significantly compensate for the lack of 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: approving a voice action with modifications. The verb 'Approve' combined with 'with modifications' distinguishes it from siblings like 'approve_voice_action' (likely approval without modifications) and 'reject_voice_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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'approve_voice_action' or 'reject_voice_action'. It implies usage when modifications are needed but lacks any direct comparison 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 behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and that 'Body is JSON,' but does not describe side effects, permissions, whether it modifies the session, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. Information is front-loaded and to the point. Every word earns its place.
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 having an output schema, the description is too sparse for a two-parameter tool with no annotations. It fails to explain concepts like 'component artifact,' 'page session,' or the expected body format beyond 'JSON.' Incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
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%, so description must compensate. It adds only that 'Body is JSON,' which helps but does not explain session_id or provide details on the body's content. Incomplete parameter information.
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: 'Install a component artifact into the page session.' The verb 'install' and resource 'component artifact' are specific, and the context 'page session' distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_builder_create or page_builder_deploy.
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 when to use it, when not to, or any prerequisites. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.
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 the action without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, permissions, or behavioral edge cases.
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 that efficiently communicates the core function. While it could include more detail, it is not 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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is still too sparse. It lacks definition of 'sessions', scope of listing, and any usage context, making it incomplete for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (zero parameters), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 uses specific verb 'List' and resource 'existing page builder sessions', clearly indicating the action and entity. Among siblings, there is no other tool with 'list' and 'sessions', so it distinguishes well.
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, nor any context about suitability 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 carries full burden. It discloses internal routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not state whether the tool is read-only or destructive, nor any side effects of running the workflow.
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 and bullet-pointed arguments. It front-loads the main action and avoids unnecessary text. Could be slightly more structured but effective.
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?
The description covers basic usage and parameters, but given the tool is a workflow action with output schema, it lacks explanation of return values, prerequisites, and what the workflow actually does. The output schema may compensate, but description alone is incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, which is helpful but lacks details on expected JSON structure or constraints.
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 runs the procurement domain agent action 'po_approval_workflow'. The name and context imply it's a purchase order approval workflow, but the description does not elaborate on what the workflow accomplishes. However, it is distinct from sibling tools by domain (procurement vs commerce).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like procurement_chat or procurement_contract_to_pay. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not specify use cases 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 carries full responsibility. It only states that it runs an action with a message and optional inputs, but does not disclose whether the action is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any rate limits. The behavioral impact of the evaluation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a short title, a brief routing note, and parameter descriptions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. The structure is clear but could be slightly more efficient by omitting the routing detail that may be unnecessary for 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?
Given the tool is a domain agent action with an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what the evaluation does, what criteria are used, or what the return value contains. The agent cannot determine if this is the right tool for evaluating supplier performance, risk, or other factors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs', which adds basic meaning. However, it lacks details on expected format, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent to guess the structure of the inputs.
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 'Run the procurement domain agent action `supplier_evaluation`' clearly indicating the verb and resource. It is specific enough to differentiate from many sibling tools through its unique action name, though it lacks explicit differentiation from closely related tools like `commerce_supplier_evaluation` or `procurement_vendor_risk_assessment`.
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 routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, implying authorization context. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `procurement_vendor_risk_assessment` or `commerce_supplier_evaluation`. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
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; description mentions dispatcher routing but lacks details on side effects, safety, or behavioral traits beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences plus argument descriptions; concise and front-loaded with purpose.
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?
Has output schema but no return value explanation; minimal parameter descriptions; lacks error handling or prerequisites.
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?
Adds meaning for 'message' (free-text objective) and 'inputs' (optional JSON string), but 0% schema coverage means description must do more; definitions are still vague.
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 runs a chat action in the product domain, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like commerce_chat or engineering_chat.
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; only describes routing context (JWT, tenant, scope) which is not usage guidance.
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 discloses routing and scope but does not mention side effects, whether the action is read-only or destructive, if it is synchronous or asynchronous, or what return value to expect. The parameter descriptions are minimal and do not describe potential side effects or performance implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with only three sentences: a one-line action statement, a sentence on routing, and a clean Args list. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured. No redundant 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?
The description assumes knowledge of what 'plan_domain_intelligence' does, which is not explained. While an output schema exists, the tool's purpose within the product domain is unclear. Given the complexity of domain agent actions and the many similar sibling tools, more context about the action's goal would enhance completeness.
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?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults. However, it does not specify the expected structure or constraints for the 'inputs' JSON.
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 it runs a specific domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence' and mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope. This makes the verb and resource clear. However, it does not explain what the underlying action actually does, which slightly reduces clarity. The specificity of 'product domain agent action' helps distinguish it from sibling tools for other domains.
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 vs alternatives. Sibling tools include many other plan_domain_intelligence tools for different domains (e.g., commerce_, crm_) and other product tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer this tool, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states 'Fetch ... company information' without mentioning authentication needs, rate limits, or data scope. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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, front-loaded with the action. It is very concise but lacks depth. However, it does not waste words.
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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what it does but does not explain that it returns structured data via an output schema. For a simple fetch tool, this is acceptable but not thorough.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description adds no extra param info. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches QuickBooks company information for the active company. The verb 'Fetch' and resource are specific, and it distinguishes from other QuickBooks tools that handle reports, invoices, etc. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'quickbooks_get_company_info' which may be identical.
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 indication of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for selection among siblings like reports or list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety traits. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, rate limits, or authentication needs. The description only mentions the return type, which is insufficient for a tool with no 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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it includes unnecessary formatting like 'Args:' and bullet points which could be streamlined. Overall, it is efficient but not perfectly 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?
An output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks information about behavior such as idempotency, whether it modifies state, or any rate limits. For a query tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal meaning: 'question: Your question' and 'top_k: Number of results to return (default 5).' These are basic repetitions of parameter names with slight elaboration, not compensating for the schema's lack of detail.
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 queries a RAG knowledge base with a question, specifying the verb 'Query' and the resource 'RAG knowledge base.' It also describes the output as relevant passages with citations, which is distinct from sibling tools like ask_document_agent or memory_query.
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 ask_document_agent or deep_research_research_query. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 discloses that the tool lists fulfillment orders and includes locations and tracking, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, error handling, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. Additionally, the description states order_id is required, while the schema makes it optional (anyOf string/null, default null), creating a contradiction that undermines transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences plus an Args section. It front-loads the core purpose and parameter, with no redundant 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?
Given the tool has an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks usage guidance and the required/optional inconsistency is a gap. For a simple list tool, it is adequate but not 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?
The description adds meaning by explaining that order_id is the Shopify order ID and can be numeric or GID. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description incorrectly marks it as required when schema allows null. No examples or format details are 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?
The description clearly states it lists fulfillment orders for a Shopify order, including locations and tracking. The verb 'list' and resource 'fulfillment orders' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like shopify_list_transactions or shopify_list_refunds, relying on the tool name for 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?
The description mentions that order_id is required but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over other list tools for Shopify.
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 carry the behavioral burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any constraints like pagination, rate limits, or idempotency. The required claim discrepancy further reduces transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with only two relevant sentences. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and the parameter details are clearly separated.
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?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, it is missing information about sorting, pagination, error handling, and the fact that owner_type is optional. The required claim error makes it incomplete.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing allowed values for owner_type and the range for limit. However, it incorrectly marks owner_type as required, contradicting the schema. Schema coverage is 0%, so additional semantic context is needed, and this error undermines reliability.
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 the specific action 'List' and resource 'declared metafield definitions' for a given owner type, which is clear. However, it claims owner_type is required while the schema marks it as optional with a default of null, causing ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like shopify_get_metafields or shopify_update_metafield. No explicit when/when-not context 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 full behavioral burden. It only states 'list recent order refunds' but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or the meaning of 'recent'. This is minimal transparency for an agent needing to decide invocation.
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 short sections. It front-loads the purpose, but could be more structured with explicit labels or bullet points for clarity.
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 output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks definition of 'recent' and does not mention the default limit (50 from schema). These gaps reduce completeness for agent decision-making.
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 description adds value beyond the schema by specifying the limit range (1-250) and clarifying order_id as optional for scoping. Given 0% schema description coverage, this is helpful, though it could include default limit and format details.
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 lists recent order refunds in the shop, including the verb 'List' and the specific resource 'order refunds'. However, 'recent' is ambiguous and no differentiation from sibling list tools is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like shopify_list_transactions or other list tools. The description does not include when-not-to-use or explicit 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?
With no annotations, description bears full burden. Only states it lists transactions; no disclosure of pagination behavior, rate limits, error handling for invalid order IDs, or scope of results (e.g., all transactions or limited set). 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Short and focused: two sentences with clear purpose and args section. No wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and one parameter, description is sparse. Does not cover output schema details (though schema exists), error scenarios, or usage context. For a list tool, missing pagination and ordering details is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates partially. States order_id is a Shopify order ID (numeric or GID) and marks it as required, which adds format info and usage constraint. However, claim of required contradicts schema (default null, not in required list), 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?
Clearly states the tool lists order transactions for a specific order, enumerating transaction types (authorisations, captures, voids, sales). This verb+resource pattern distinguishes it from other Shopify list tools (e.g., shopify_list_collections, shopify_list_discounts) and sibling tools from other systems.
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 exclusions, prerequisites, or context for selection among similar tools like shopify_list_refunds or stripe_list_transactions.
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 bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it runs a domain agent action and routes through dispatcher, but omits side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or any consequences of invocation. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three sentences front-loading the purpose, followed by a structured list of arguments. No extraneous information; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema documentation, the description is marginally adequate. It explains what the tool does and its auth scope, but omits return value, error scenarios, and prerequisites. For a simple two-parameter tool, it feels partially 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 parameter description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string, which clarifies usage beyond the bare schema. However, it lacks formatting examples or constraints (e.g., valid JSON 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 'Run the smarthome domain agent action `command_plan`', which specifies a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling smarthome tools like 'smarthome_scene_assist' or 'smarthome_automation_review', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific 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 mentions routing through the dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which provides context but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher. It does not disclose whether the action is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how the output is structured. This is insufficient for a transparent behavioral profile.
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 at three sentences, front-loading the key action in the first sentence. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the second sentence about routing could be shortened without losing meaning.
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 having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to mention what the status report returns. It also does not explain how to effectively use the 'inputs' parameter or what kind of status information is generated. The minimal description leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to act correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining 'message' as a 'free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, with 0% schema description coverage, a deeper explanation of expected formats or examples would be beneficial.
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 runs the 'status_report' action for the smarthome domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like smarthome_chat or smarthome_command_plan by naming the exact 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 versus alternatives. It explains the routing mechanism but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, whether the update is a merge or replacement, required permissions, or idempotency. Critical information for a mutation tool 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that convey the essential information without any extraneous text. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not explain return values. However, it lacks information on update semantics (e.g., partial vs full update), required fields in the body, and potential errors. For a tool with many siblings, the description is minimal and could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'body' parameter by stating it is 'JSON of fields to change', which is helpful. However, no meaning is added for 'task_id' or 'tenant_id', which are left to the schema alone. Partial compensation.
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 'Update a CRM task' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_crm_task, get_crm_task, and delete_crm_task. The added detail about the body being JSON clarifies the input format, but the purpose is straightforward and well-understood.
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 when to update versus create or delete a CRM task. The description simply states the operation without addressing 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 carries full burden. It only states it runs an action and routes through dispatcher, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what the action actually does (e.g., planning, analysis). The behavioral traits are unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (4 lines plus Args) with no fluff. Information is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose. Ideal length.
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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, it does not explain what 'plan_domain_intelligence' accomplishes in the wealth advisory domain, leaving the agent without sufficient context to decide when to invoke it over other similar tools.
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 compensate. It explains 'message' as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaning beyond the schema types and defaults, but is brief and could include formats or constraints.
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 it runs a specific domain agent action 'plan_domain_intelligence', which clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling wealth_advisory tools beyond the action 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?
The description mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, providing some context, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus other wealth_advisory tools or alternatives. No explicit when-to-use 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return is a log but does not indicate read-only nature, permissions, or response structure. With an output schema available, some context is provided, but the description lacks necessary behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. The key verb 'Get' is front-loaded, and the parenthetical provides immediate clarification. It earns its place with no wasted text.
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 output schema exists, the return structure is covered, but the description fails to explain the two parameters or provide usage context. For a simple tool with no annotations, more detail is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 does not explain what 'domain' and 'trace_id' mean or how to obtain them. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning beyond those 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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'workspace trace', explicitly calling it a 'full agent execution log'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_bundle and workspace_surface, which deal with different aspects of workspaces.
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. Sibling tools like code_workspace_get_run or workspace_bundle might be similar, but no exclusions or context are given to help the agent choose.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention read-only nature, pagination, ordering, rate limits, or any side effects. For a list tool, such omissions are significant.
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: one-line purpose plus two parameter explanations. No redundant information. Well-structured with clear 'Args' section. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, missing pagination, sorting, or limit information that is typical for list tools. The description is functional but leaves gaps for complex use cases.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'status: One of: pending, open, closed.' (even though schema lacks enum) and 'client_id: Filter to a specific Clio contact ID.' These add value beyond the bare JSON schema. Could be more detailed (e.g., format requirements).
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 'List Clio matters for the connected firm.' This is a specific verb (list) and resource (matters). Among many clio_list_* siblings, it unambiguously identifies the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate beyond the resource 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 like clio_get_matter or clio_search. The description only lists parameters without context on when filtering is appropriate. No exclusions or alternative suggestions.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but does not describe side effects (e.g., payment creation), error handling, or any destructive or read-only nature. The name suggests a payment action, but this is not confirmed.
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 with two short paragraphs and clear argument descriptions. It is front-loaded with the main action and provides necessary context without unnecessary 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 tool's complexity and many sibling tools (including a related procurement version), the description lacks context about what 'contract_to_pay' entails in the commerce domain, prerequisites, or failure behavior. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral and contextual details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs, adding meaning beyond the schema defaults. However, it does not provide examples or expected JSON structure, leaving some ambiguity.
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 runs the commerce domain agent action 'contract_to_pay', specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'procurement_contract_to_pay', which likely performs a similar action in a different domain.
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 the tool is for commerce domain actions under the user's JWT, tenant, and company scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'procurement_contract_to_pay' or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions routing and scope but omits side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens when inputs are invalid. It does not explain the response format despite an existing output schema.
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 relatively short (5 lines) with a clear structure: statement of purpose, routing context, then Args section. However, it could be more front-loaded and avoid the docstring-style 'Args:' block if not needed.
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?
Considering the complexity (domain agent action) and existence of output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basics but lacks details on plan generation behavior, error cases, or integration with other tools.
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 description adds meaning for both parameters: message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Given 0% schema coverage, this is helpful but could be more precise about expected JSON 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 it runs the 'generate_plan' action for the content domain agent. It identifies the verb (run) and resource (content domain agent action). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like content_generate_content or content_chat, which share similar purpose scope.
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 explains the routing and authentication context but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other content tools. It lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'generates and stores a document', indicating a write operation, but lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting), authentication needs, or rate limits. This minimal transparency is insufficient for a tool with no 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 extremely concise: one introductory sentence followed by a clean bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the structure is 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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks context on permissions, potential errors, or storage behavior. It covers parameter options well but omits broader operational context.
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?
While the schema lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description explicitly lists all allowed values for 'format' and 'target_suite', adding meaning beyond the schema. This helps the agent understand valid inputs, though the parameter names themselves are self-explanatory.
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 creates a new document and specifies the types (report, memo, brief, etc.) and includes the format and target options. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like create_slide_deck or create_spreadsheet, which could cause confusion about which tool to choose for a given task.
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 other document creation tools or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from context 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but omits side effects, permissions required, error behavior, or any constraints on usage. For a creation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise description with no redundant content. Front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a structured args list. Each sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple creation tool with output schema provided, the description covers the essential parameters and minimal behavior. It lacks some completeness aspects (e.g., error handling, duplicate handling) but overall is sufficient for an agent given the 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds moderate value by explaining 'title' as spreadsheet title, 'body' as optional initial content, and 'target_suite' with enumerated values. However, it lacks format details for 'body' and any constraints on 'target_suite'.
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 'Create a new spreadsheet' with a specific verb and resource. The args list adds context about parameters, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from other create-type sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 lacks context about when this tool is appropriate or when to choose other similar tools like 'create_document' or 'create_slide_deck'.
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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), required permissions, or potential impact. The description leaves the agent uninformed about the tool's behavior beyond execution.
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?
Efficient three-sentence description with a clear list of args. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Run the crm domain agent action agentic_plan'). No extraneous text.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown in description), the description does not explain what the agentic_plan action entails (e.g., creating, modifying, or querying plans). With many CRM siblings, the description could provide more context about the tool's role within the CRM domain. Adequate but leaves gaps about the action's broader purpose.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear purpose for both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string for structured inputs. This meaningfully supplements the schema, though it could further specify expected format for 'inputs'.
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 runs the CRM domain agent action 'agentic_plan' and routes through the dispatcher. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling CRM tools (e.g., crm_chat, crm_plan_sequence). The description identifies the specific action but lacks context on what makes this action unique.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without specifying scenarios, prerequisites, or when to choose it over other CRM tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which implies authorization context. However, it does not disclose whether the action is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any rate limits. The behavioral profile 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and well-structured: a one-line summary, a sentence about routing, and a bullet list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is optimally concise for a tool with two parameters.
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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and only two parameters, the description is adequate but not comprehensive. It fails to describe return values, prerequisites for the action, or any usage context that would help the agent understand the tool's role in the CRM domain. The description meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds clear definitions: 'message' is a free-text objective, and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This provides essential meaning beyond the bare schema. More detail on the expected structure of 'inputs' would improve it further.
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 runs the 'autonomous_source' action of the crm domain agent. It specifies the routing mechanism, which helps distinguish it from direct CRM operations like crm_chat or crm_lead_qualification. However, it does not explain what the 'autonomous_source' action actually does, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 other CRM tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The agent receives no help in deciding whether to invoke this tool or one of the many similar CRM 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 routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose side effects, read-only behavior, rate limits, or response characteristics. The behavior of a 'chat' action is vague.
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?
Description is concise: one line for action, one for routing, then clear Args listing. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action name.
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?
While parameters are explained and an output schema exists (not shown), the description lacks context about typical use cases, side effects, or prerequisites. Adequate but minimal for a chat tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds explicit meaning: message is 'Free-text objective' and inputs is 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies usage beyond the schema's default 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 it runs the customer_success domain agent action `chat` and routes through the dispatcher. It identifies the domain but does not differentiate from other domain-specific chat tools like commerce_chat or engineering_chat.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use context 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. Description only states 'Delete a CRM task' without disclosing behavioral traits such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or side effects. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise single sentence. No wasted words, but at the cost of completeness. Structure is fine but could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple delete operation but missing important context: is it reversible? What happens to related data? Does it require confirmation? Output schema exists but description doesn't leverage it. Overall 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?
Schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds no information about parameters (task_id required, tenant_id optional). It does not explain 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?
Description clearly states the action (Delete) and the resource (CRM task). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_crm_task, update_crm_task, etc. by specifying the delete operation.
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 this tool versus alternatives. The context implies deletion use case, but there is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, 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 mentions routing and scoping (JWT, tenant, company), which gives context. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, nor does it disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling.
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 three sentences and a list of arguments. It is well-structured, starting with purpose, then routing context, then parameters. No unnecessary information is present.
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 that an output schema exists, the description is not required to explain return values. However, for a query tool, it could mention that the tool returns data or provide more context about the expected results. The description is minimally adequate.
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 the description must explain parameters. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks examples or format details for the inputs parameter.
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 runs the 'finance domain agent action query_data', which indicates its purpose as a query tool within the finance domain. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the finance domain, but could be more specific about the type of data queried.
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. The description does not mention any conditions for use, exclusions, or comparisons with other finance tools or domain query 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions but does not detail side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what gets destroyed. The added value 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 concise (2 sentences plus parameter list) and front-loads the purpose. The parameter list adds detail but is slightly verbose. Overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 params and an output schema (not shown). The description does not mention return values, side effects, or error conditions. Given the complexity of offboarding, more context is needed for safe 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. The Args section provides some context but incorrectly states employee_id as required (schema says optional). Other params have minimal explanation; voluntary is not described. This contradiction with schema reduces reliability.
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 starts with 'Run employee offboarding' and lists specific operations (revoke access, transfer ownership, etc.), clearly stating the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hr_onboard and hr_leave_request.
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 when to use (offboarding) but does not explicitly state conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives like the hr_employee_offboarding_loop sibling. No mention of when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions routing through domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which discloses scope behavior. However, it does not state whether the action is read-only or has side effects, despite the health check name suggesting a safe operation. Without annotations, more disclosure about effects 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?
Description is short (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. Uses a structured Args list. No unnecessary fluff, though it could be slightly more 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?
Given the tool has an output schema (not shown), return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description does not explain the health check's purpose or how to effectively use the inputs. For a simple tool, it is minimally complete but lacks depth to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string'. This adds meaning beyond the schema but remains vague – does not clarify how these inputs influence the health check or what valid formats are.
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 'Run the intuit domain agent action health_check' – a specific verb and resource. The name 'health_check' implies a health check operation, but the description does not elaborate on what the health check achieves, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 other intuit_* tools. The description lacks any context about typical scenarios 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?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not explain side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what the manifest contains. This lacks sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 6-word sentence with no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and easy to parse.
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 has zero parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the resource but could briefly clarify what a 'MCP manifest' is. However, the output schema likely provides return value details, so the description suffices.
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 tool has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the empty schema, which is adequate given no parameters exist.
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IT-Ops workspace MCP manifest'), clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like it_ops_chat or it_ops_deployment by focusing on a manifest retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other it_ops tools or alternatives. The description is minimal and offers no context for use cases, 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?
The description only mentions routing authentication (JWT, tenant, company scope), but with no annotations, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only or mutates state, error behavior, or any side effects. This lack of transparency is a major gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one line for purpose, one for routing context, and two lines for parameters. It is front-loaded with the key action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
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?
While the description covers the basic purpose and parameters, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. Given the complexity of the sibling tool landscape and absence of annotations, the description feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand when and how to use the tool. The presence of an output schema is noted but not referenced.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies the purpose of each parameter, though more detail on expected format for message could improve clarity.
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 runs the 'it_ops domain agent action `qa`', which is a specific verb and resource. The name 'qa' suggests quality assurance, but the description does not explain what the qa action entails, leaving some ambiguity. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by its unique action 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or contexts. Given many sibling tools exist, this is a significant omission, making it hard for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.
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 disclose behavior. It states the action routes through a dispatcher under authentication context, but does not explain the actual outcome of the action (e.g., whether it creates a record, triggers a workflow, or modifies state). The behavior of the underlying domain agent 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: three sentences plus an arg list with no redundant information. Key information is front-loaded (action name and routing), and the parameter descriptions are clear and to the point.
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?
While the description covers the basic action and parameters, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details about the domain agent's side effects. For a proxy tool with an output schema, the return value is not mentioned, and given the 0% schema coverage, more context would be helpful for complete understanding.
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?
Description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining 'message' as a 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Given 0% schema description coverage, this context is valuable and clarifies parameter usage, though it could be more precise about the format of 'inputs'.
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 ('Run') and resource ('it_ops domain agent action software_feedback_intake'), indicating it executes a specific agent action. While it distinguishes from generic tools, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like it_ops_triage_sdlc_intake or it_ops_product_requirements_intake, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 other IT operations intake tools. The description fails to specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual decision 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?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, or limitations. It only states the basic action without additional context beyond the action itself.
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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, but the argument list format is somewhat unstructured and lacks full sentences for each parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count and no schema descriptions, the tool description partially covers necessary information but misses details on parameter semantics and behavioral context, though an output schema exists.
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?
With 0% schema parameter coverage, the description adds some value by providing an example for project_key and hints for issue_type and assignee, but it fails to describe summary and description, leaving gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Create a Jira issue in a project' with a specific verb and resource. However, the contradiction between stating project_key and summary as required while the schema marks them as optional slightly muddles the purpose.
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 a new issue needs to be created, but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like jira_create_subtask or jira_update_issue, nor does it provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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 bears full burden. It states the action is 'Generate' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., does it create records, send emails, or just produce output?), nor does it disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavioral nuances like how the side letter decision is made.
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?
Description is concise with a single sentence outlining the packet, followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. No unnecessary words, though the args list could be integrated more naturally. Front-loaded purpose is effective.
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 4 parameters and output schema presence, description covers basic semantics but lacks details on output format, when side letter is 'if needed', and any storage behavior. The counterparty requirement contradiction leaves ambiguity. Adequate but incomplete for full autonomous invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no field descriptions in JSON schema), so description adds value by explaining each parameter: variant lists options, counterparty is named, term_months is 'Confidentiality term length'. However, counterparty is described as required but schema has default null with anyOf null, creating a contradiction that reduces clarity.
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 generates a complete NDA packet, listing specific components (NDA, side letter, intake form, executive summary), and distinguishes it from sibling legal tools like contract review or agreement packets by focusing on NDA generation.
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 legal_employment_agreement_packet or legal_contract_review. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when to choose this over other legal packet generators.
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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool routes through a dispatcher but does not describe whether the action is destructive, read-only, or its side effects. Information on output or consequences 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The argument list could be structured as bullets for readability, but the current form is efficient and free of 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?
Although an output schema exists, the description omits any mention of return values or outcomes. For an agent action with complex behavior, the lack of output description and minimal behavioral context leaves the description incomplete. The tool also has no required parameters, increasing the need for clarity on what the action does.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This clarifies the parameters' purpose beyond the schema's default values 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 specifies 'Run the legal domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`', providing a clear verb and resource. The domain prefix (legal) distinguishes it from sibling tools in other domains. However, it does not elaborate on what 'plan_domain_intelligence' entails in the legal context.
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 routing through platform dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying authentication but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The existence of many sibling 'plan_domain_intelligence' tools for other domains provides implicit context, but no direct comparison 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, the description carries full burden but only mentions routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope. It discloses authentication context but omits critical behavioral traits such as whether the action is destructive, idempotent, or what side effects occur. The safety profile is largely absent.
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 four sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides routing context, and the remaining two succinctly document parameters. 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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what happens when the action runs (e.g., returns a status, creates a record, or triggers a workflow). For a tool that 'runs' an action, the outcome is unclear. The description covers basic auth context but lacks completeness about effects and return behavior.
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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema: 'message' is described as a 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Given the schema has 0% description coverage, this clarifies parameter roles and optionality effectively.
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 runs a specific legal domain agent action 'vendor_onboarding_legal_loop'. It specifies the action by name and mentions routing through a dispatcher. However, it does not differentiate this loop from sibling tools like 'legal_vendor_onboard' or 'legal_partnership_onboarding_loop', which may have overlapping 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions for usage, and no explicit exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without context for selecting it among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'list', implying read-only, but gives no details on what is listed (e.g., fields, ordering, pagination) or any side effects. Critical behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose without waste. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists but is not described in the description. For a list tool, missing return value details is a notable gap, though the description is functional for basic usage. Slightly more context about the output 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 description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for parameters run_id (likely filters by run) and limit (page size). Without explanation, the agent must infer their roles from default values 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 'List AutoCompany cognitive-loop ticks', specifying the verb (List) and the resource (ticks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_aoc_runs, get_aoc_tick, etc., 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative.
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 'List workflow definitions,' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details about rate limits, pagination, data freshness, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that handles potentially sensitive workflow definitions.
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 that directly communicates the tool's purpose with no superfluous words or repetition. It is optimally brief.
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?
While the output schema exists and reduces the need to explain return values, the description is too minimal for a tool in a complex ecosystem. It does not clarify the scope of 'workflow definitions,' whether they are system-defined or user-created, or any filtering or ordering capabilities. With many sibling list tools, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It correctly communicates that no input 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'workflow definitions', which clearly indicates the tool's action. However, it does not distinguish this from other list tools (e.g., list_aoc_runs, list_domain_actions) that also list definitions or runs, leaving some ambiguity about what 'workflows' refers to specifically.
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 over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for when it should or should not be called.
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 behavior. It states the action but does not mention whether it is irreversible, requires permissions, or what happens when there are no unread notifications. For a write operation, more behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste. For a no-parameter tool, this is appropriately 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?
The description is minimal and does not explain what happens after the action (e.g., return values, success indicators). Despite having an output schema, the description adds no context about outcomes or error scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline 3 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 'Mark', the resource 'all notifications', and the action 'as read'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like mark_notification_read (singular) and list_notifications.
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 this is for bulk operations or contrast with the singular mark_notification_read.
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 bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states 'Unpublish' without explaining side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or impacts on the session. 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.
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 action with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context such as the requirement that the session be deployed, the expected outcome, or reference to the available output schema. Could be improved.
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 should clarify the parameter meaning. It does not mention 'session_id' at all, leaving the agent to infer that it identifies the session to unpublish. No details on format, source, 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 uses the specific verb 'Unpublish' and the resource 'deployed page builder session', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like page_builder_create, page_builder_deploy, and page_builder_preview.
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, nor does it mention any preconditions or context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses routing via domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which provides some transparency. However, it does not describe side effects, performance implications, or whether the tool is read-only or mutating.
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 succinct with four sentences. It gets directly to the point without fluff, though the implementation detail about routing could be omited for conciseness.
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 2 optional params and an output schema, the description provides the basic usage but does not elaborate on the action's purpose or output. The output schema exists but is not referenced in the description, leaving an information gap.
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 description adds basic meaning to both parameters ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'), compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. However, the descriptions are minimal and lack format details, examples, or constraints.
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 runs a specific domain agent action named 'feedback_synthesis', providing a clear verb+resource combination. However, it does not explain what the action does or distinguish it from other similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states the mechanism 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 carries full burden. It only states a read operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior if no active company exists. Minimal transparency beyond 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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple fetch operation, though it could add slight 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?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it could mention that company info pertains to the currently connected QuickBooks company, and it does not address potential edge cases or return format, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional semantic value, but none is needed for a parameterless tool.
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 'Fetch' and the resource 'company information', and specifies it is for the 'active company', which distinguishes it from other QuickBooks tools like reports. 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 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 vs. alternatives like 'quickbooks_company_info' (a sibling). The description lacks context for selection and does not mention prerequisites or recommended 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, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool lists discounts and mentions the limit parameter, but does not reveal authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or pagination details.
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 brief and to the point, with the purpose front-loaded. The parameter documentation is minimal but clear. It earns its place without extraneous detail.
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 single optional parameter and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a list tool. It covers the basics of what is listed and the main parameter.
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 description adds a range constraint (1-250) for the limit parameter, which is not present in the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well.
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 lists 'active and historical discount codes / automatic discounts in the shop', using a specific verb and resource. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. There is no explicit context for when this is appropriate or any 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 should disclose behavioral traits but only states basic functionality. It omits details about pagination, rate limits, default behavior, or whether results are limited, which is critical for agent usage.
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 one sentence and an arg list, avoiding unnecessary verbiage. However, it lacks a structured format that separates overview from parameter details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of a list operation and the presence of an output schema, the description provides minimal necessary context. It fails to mention default behavior or result format, leaving room for ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds value by specifying valid values for 'status' ('One of: open, invoice_sent, completed'). However, 'limit' is merely listed with no explanation, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
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 draft orders from the connected Shopify store,' using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('draft orders'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with discounts, fulfillment orders, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like shopify_list_fulfillment_orders or shopify_list_discounts. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals the tool performs a write operation (create/update) but does not disclose idempotency, required permissions, rate limits, error behaviors, or side effects (e.g., whether updating triggers webhooks).
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: one sentence for purpose followed by a bullet-like list of parameters with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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?
The description covers all parameters but lacks behavioral context such as idempotency, validation rules, or return value structure. Since an output schema exists, the agent can infer return type, but for a complex mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, additional context would be beneficial.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds useful meaning by listing each parameter (owner_type, owner_id, namespace, key, value, type) and providing default values for owner_type and type. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create or update') and resource ('metafield on a Shopify resource'), which is specific and distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like shopify_get_metafields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other mutation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 shopify_get_metafields or shopify_list_metafield_definitions. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or conditional considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and mentions gathering context under RBAC scope, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, disclose side effects, or cover auth details beyond RBAC. It is adequate but minimal.
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: first states purpose, second specifies usage scenarios and gathers what context. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no extraneous 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?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the general purpose and scope but lacks parameter guidance. The presence of an output schema partially compensates for missing return value details. It is minimally complete.
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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameter. Meaning and usage must be inferred entirely from names and defaults, which is insufficient for an agent to use the tool 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 tool retrieves a 'Lightbulb software-delivery context packet' for use before editing code, using a specific verb ('Get') and resource. It lists the types of context gathered but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'coding_get_context' or 'software_delivery_loop'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a usage context ('before making a repo change' from specific IDEs) but gives no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any explicit exclusions. The timing is clear but incomplete.
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 mentions pagination via the 'cursor' parameter but does not state that the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or that it returns all customers (subject to pagination). The minimal description leaves significant transparency gaps.
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 short and front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, followed by a simple args list. It contains no fluff, but it could be more structured (e.g., separate usage note). Overall, it earns its place efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools and does not explicitly state pagination behavior or the scope of results. It is minimally functional.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief but clear explanations for 'limit' (maximum customers to return) and 'cursor' (pagination cursor from previous response). However, it does not mention the default value for limit (100) or elaborate on cursor usage.
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 customers in the connected Square account,' specifying the verb (list) and resource (customers). This distinctly identifies the tool among Square siblings like square_list_payments or square_list_locations, as it is the only customer-specific list tool.
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 square_search_catalog or other list tools. It does not specify exclusions or comparative advantages, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'approve', implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens after approval (e.g., automatic execution).
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 that is concise. However, it could be slightly more informative 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?
The description is too sparse for a tool with one required parameter, no schema descriptions, and no annotations. It does not explain prerequisites, how to get approval_id, or the relationship to sibling tools like stripe_run_workflow that generate pending decisions.
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 schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'approval_id', and the description adds no context about how to obtain or interpret this ID. The agent is left guessing where approval_id comes from.
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 ('Approve'), the resource ('pending Stripe orchestrator decision'), and the effect ('so it can execute'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like stripe_execute_approved and stripe_reject.
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 a pending decision needs approval, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., stripe_execute_approved for already approved decisions).
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 present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose any additional behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects, or error conditions. The description is neutral but insufficient given the lack of 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?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness, such as clarifying the required parameter.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, with a required parameter and zero schema documentation, the description is too minimal. It is barely adequate for a simple 'get' tool but lacks completeness regarding the essential parameter.
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 the schema provides no documentation for the 'xero_tenant_id' parameter. The description does not explain what this parameter is, where to obtain it, or its format. It fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name 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 a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'Xero org profile' with concrete examples of included data (chart of accounts, tax rates, branding). It clearly states what the tool retrieves, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'xero_get_organisation'.
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 this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied: when you need org profile information. There are no exclusions or context provided to help an agent decide between this and 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens on failure. The description simply repeats the action of 'running' a playbook without any behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one sentence followed by a structured argument list. It front-loads the core action and lists parameters efficiently without unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal. It provides the critical list of playbook IDs but does not explain what a 'playbook' entails, what output to expect (though output schema exists), or error scenarios. The context is adequate for selecting the tool but not for fully understanding its behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds some value by listing possible playbook_id values. However, the body parameter is only described as 'Optional JSON object of inputs' without explaining the expected structure or keys. This is adequate but not rich.
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 runs a Xero playbook and lists the available playbook_id values. This provides specificity about the resource and action, and the list of playbook IDs helps distinguish it from other similar tools like xero_agent_run_sync.
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 when to use the tool by listing the playbook scenarios (e.g., month_end_close, ar_followup), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many xero sibling tools. Usage is inferred but not fully guided.
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 lists actions including destructive ones like delete and interrupt but does not disclose behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond the action names.
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 and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section clearly documents each parameter. Every sentence is useful with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, return values may be documented there, but the description doesn't mention output. For a tool with 4 parameters and varied actions, it provides the essential list of actions but lacks context on what each action does in detail.
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 compensate. It explains the 'action' parameter with a list of possible values and gives an example for 'body'. However, 'workspace_id' and 'session_id' are not described, so partial compensation.
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 'Perform a Claude SDK session action' and lists specific actions like tag, fork, delete, etc., distinguishing it from sibling tools like code_workspace_chat and code_workspace_claude_sessions.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The sibling list is provided but without comparative 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not describe side effects, rate limits, or what actions the agent action performs beyond its name.
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 relatively concise, front-loading the purpose. However, it repeats the tool name unnecessarily and could be more streamlined.
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?
While an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description lacks details on what `revenue_by_channel` actually computes or expects, and does not differentiate from similar siblings. It meets the minimum but leaves gaps.
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 description adds clear meaning to both parameters: `message` is a free-text objective, `inputs` is an optional JSON string. This is valuable given the input schema has 0% description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Run the commerce domain agent action `revenue_by_channel`', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like `commerce_revenue_by_product` that serve 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining revenue data by channel, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `commerce_revenue_by_product` or other commerce 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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'including headers and body' but does not explain what different format values (minimal, full, raw, metadata) return, how errors are handled, or any authentication or rate limit considerations. The description is too sparse for an unannotated 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 concise with two sentences plus an Args list. No extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured, but for a simple tool it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, simple fetch), the description covers the basics but is incomplete. It fails to clarify the message_id requirement contradiction, explain the format parameter options, or mention any output schema behavior. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for these gaps.
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 adds that message_id is required and lists format options, but there is a contradiction: the schema marks message_id as optional (default null, anyOf null/string). This inconsistency undermines the semantics. Additionally, the description does not explain what each format value does, 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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a single Gmail message by ID, including headers and body. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like gmail_list_emails (list multiple) and gmail_send_email (send).
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage from context. No exclusions or comparisons 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 are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says the tool routes through a dispatcher and takes free-text input. It does not mention whether it is read-only, modifies data, requires special permissions, or has rate limits. The term 'chat' implies interaction but not the nature of the underlying 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?
The description is extremely concise with only three sentences. It front-loads the main purpose and then provides parameter details. No redundant information. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a simple chat tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, context (dispatcher, scoping), and parameter semantics. It does not explain the return value, but the output schema likely handles that. Lacks usage guidelines, which prevents a higher score.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds brief but meaningful descriptions: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This clarifies the purpose of each parameter beyond the schema's default values 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 clearly states the tool runs a 'chat' action for the GRC domain, using a domain-agent dispatcher. It explains the routing context (JWT, tenant, company). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other grc_* sibling tools like grc_compliance_audit, though the purpose is distinct enough.
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 mentions routing under certain scopes but does not provide context for when to choose this over other 'chat' tools or other GRC tools. No exclusions or alternatives 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 basic operation, omitting details like error handling (e.g., missing node), return format, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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. It is front-loaded and clear, but may be too terse for complex use cases. However, it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one simple parameter and likely a straightforward output (based on output schema existence), the description is minimally adequate. It could mention return format or edge cases for 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add meaning to 'node_id' beyond its name. No information about format, source, or constraints is provided.
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 a single node from the memory graph', which specifies the action (Get), the resource (single node), and the context (memory graph). It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_list_entries (list all) or memory_search (search).
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 use when you need a specific node by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_query, memory_recall). 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the default namespace and parameter meaning but omits critical details: what happens if the key does not exist, the format/value type of the recalled data, any side effects (likely read-only), or error handling.
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?
Very concise: two-sentence main description followed by structured arg list. No redundant information, front-loaded with core action.
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, the description covers the core functionality and parameter defaults. However, it lacks mention of return value (partially covered by presence of output schema) and usage context relative to other memory tools. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description compensates minimally. It adds meaning by naming 'Memory key to recall' and 'Memory namespace (default "default")'. This is basic but sufficient for parameters with no enums or complex 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?
Description clearly states 'Recall a value from agent memory' with specific verb and resource. Among sibling memory tools (memory_store, memory_search, memory_list_entries, etc.), it is distinctly the key-based retrieval operation, avoiding 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or memory_query. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or contrast with sibling 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 bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List Outlook messages' but does not mention whether it returns all messages or just unread, whether pagination is supported, any rate limits, or required permissions. The simplicity might imply a read-only operation, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with one sentence stating the purpose followed by a parameter list. No extraneous information. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks details about the response format (though an output schema exists, it is not shown), pagination behavior, and whether special folder names are expected. The parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'OData filter expression' could use an example). It is adequate for a basic list tool but incomplete for full usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief clarifications: 'Mailbox folder name' for folder, 'Max messages to return' for top, and 'OData filter expression' for filter. These add basic meaning beyond the schema defaults but are terse and do not explain filter syntax or optional behavior.
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 it lists Outlook messages from the connected Microsoft 365 mailbox. The verb 'list' and resource 'Outlook messages' are specific. It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like gmail_list_emails or microsoft_list_channel_messages which operate on different email services or message types.
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 prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other Microsoft listing tools such as microsoft_list_chat_messages or microsoft_list_drive_files. The description simply lists parameters without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains that content_markdown will be converted to Notion blocks, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose nuances like the difference between creating a page in a database vs a page, or any other side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but only partially fulfills it.
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 a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by parameter documentation. It uses minimal words effectively. However, the title parameter has no description, which could be considered a missed opportunity to be concise but informative. Overall, good 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?
While the description covers the basic purpose, it lacks important contextual details such as the difference between creating a page in a database vs a page, whether the title has any restrictions, or what the response contains. Given that the input schema has no descriptions and no annotations, the description should provide more guidance to ensure correct usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for output explanation, but the description is still incomplete for parameter semantics and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for parent_id (specifying it's a page or database ID) and content_markdown (mentioning Markdown conversion). However, title has no description beyond being required. Given 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a gap for the title parameter. A score of 3 is appropriate as it adds some value but not comprehensively.
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), the resource (a new Notion page), and the context (in a given parent). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like notion_create_database which creates a database instead. The scope is explicit.
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 lacks any usage guidelines. It does not specify when to use this tool versus similar tools like notion_create_database or notion_create_comment. No when-not or alternative indications are present, which is a significant gap for an AI agent to decide correctly.
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 routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the action is read-only or has side effects, nor does it mention rate limits, performance, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 lines) with a clear front-loaded purpose and a well-structured Args section. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, both optional) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, or when the tool is appropriate versus siblings. The output schema exists but is not described, so the agent must infer structure from elsewhere.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not specify allowed JSON structure, examples, or constraints, leaving moderate ambiguity.
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 it runs a 'product domain agent action predict' and mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, giving a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like commerce_predict or specify what kind of prediction (e.g., demand, forecasting), limiting perfect 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 or when not to use it. The description only describes the mechanism, not usage context. Sibling tools like commerce_predict suggest related but distinct use cases, yet no differentiation 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 full burden but lacks disclosures about data freshness, query limits, or security requirements. It only describes parameters, not behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one clear sentence followed by succinct parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with purpose.
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 an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks context about report structure, error handling, or data scope, leaving gaps for a complex report tool.
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 compensate. It adds format hints for as_of_date and enumerates accounting_method values (Accrual/Cash). However, summarize_column_by and columns remain vague without specific options.
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 fetches a QuickBooks balance sheet report as of a date, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling report tools (e.g., profit/loss, trial balance).
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 alternative report tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for optimal 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 does not mention that the tool is read-only, any permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The basic action is clear but lacks transparency about behavior beyond listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the argument list is efficiently formatted. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks mention of pagination, sorting, or the fact that omitting the query returns all customers. 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'query' as a name/email search filter and 'max_results' as a limit on returns. However, it omits details like default values (e.g., max_results default 100 from schema) and query format specifics.
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 'List QuickBooks customers for the active company,' identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from other list tools like quickbooks_list_accounts by specifying 'customers.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides parameter guidance (optional query filter and max_results limit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage is implied but not fully guided.
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 a read-only fetch operation and clarifies parameter usage (e.g., as_of_date for balance reports). However, no annotations exist, and the description omits details on error handling, auth, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear 'Args:' and bullet points. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value, focusing on parameter details.
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?
While the description covers parameters well, it lacks context about sibling report tools and when to use this generic version. Given that dedicated tools exist, this gap reduces completeness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning: report_name is required, date formats, and parameter purposes. It could be improved with enums for report_name and summarize_column_by, but is largely effective.
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 fetches a named QuickBooks report and lists examples. However, it does not differentiate from sibling specific report tools like quickbooks_profit_loss_report, which could confuse an agent.
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 generic tool versus the specific report tools (e.g., quickbooks_balance_sheet_report). The agent receives no help in choosing between 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?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only states it 'fetches' counts. It doesn't mention read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, or that no mutations occur.
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 sentences plus a parameter list, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the purpose. Efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail returns, but it omits context like default behavior when location_ids are omitted, error conditions, or needed prior steps like searching catalog items.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the two parameters (catalog_object_ids as required, location_ids as optional). However, it contradicts the schema which marks catalog_object_ids as optional (default null). With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates partially but lacks examples 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'Square inventory counts for one or more catalog items', distinguishing it from sibling tools like square_get_catalog_item or square_get_order.
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 or context provided. The description merely lists parameters 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, but it discloses no behavioral traits beyond the basic listing function. Missing details on pagination, ordering, rate limits, authorization requirements, or what happens when no filters are provided.
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, with the purpose front-loaded and parameter details clearly listed. Every sentence adds value, but parameter explanations could be more structured (e.g., grouping optionality).
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 having an output schema, the description lacks context on common usage patterns, pagination behavior, date range constraints, and how to effectively use optional filters. The minimal information may leave an agent uncertain about expected behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds semantic meaning for all three parameters: explains 'from_date' as begin time (RFC 3339), 'to_date' as end time (RFC 3339), and 'location_id' as filter by location. This compensates well for the bare schema, though default behavior is not clarified.
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 Square payments for the connected merchant account,' specifying the verb (List), resource (Square payments), and scope (connected merchant account). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like square_get_payment (single payment) and square_list_payouts (different resource).
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 square_get_payment or list tools from other providers. No usage context, exclusions, or when-not-to-use information 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?
Discloses routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, which adds security context. However, with no annotations, the description carries full burden but does not mention mutability, rate limits, or side effects. The optional inputs parameter is explained, but overall behavioral traits are minimally disclosed.
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 and two parameter descriptions. No wasted words, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
Adequate for a simple chat tool with optional parameters and an output schema present. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling wealth_advisory tools and does not explain what the chat agent can do, leaving the agent to rely on domain knowledge.
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?
Adds meaning by describing 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string, which the input schema (0% coverage) lacks. However, no details on the expected structure of inputs or examples are given, so improvement is possible.
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 explicitly names the domain (wealth_advisory) and action (chat), and explains it routes through a dispatcher. This makes the purpose clear and distinguishes it from other domain chat tools, though it could be more specific about what the agent can help with.
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 other chat tools (e.g., commerce_chat, coding_chat) or other wealth_advisory tools. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions 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 bears full responsibility. It only states the action and a vague outcome ('so it can execute'), failing to disclose prerequisites, side effects, or what the tool actually does beyond the name. With an output schema, agents might infer return values, but the description does not leverage this.
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, 8 words). While concise, it lacks necessary details and is arguably under-specified. It could be expanded to include parameter hints or behavioral notes without losing clarity.
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 that performs an approval action with two parameters (one undocumented), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the body parameter, expected outcomes, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema may help but does not excuse the lack of context in the description.
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 meaning or usage of the two parameters. 'proposal_id' is self-explanatory from its name, but 'body' (default '{}') is left entirely undocumented, leaving agents to guess its format and 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 action (approve) and the resource (Xero proposal) and the consequence ('so it can execute'). It distinguishes from its sibling 'xero_agent_reject_proposal' by indicating approval specifically.
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 this tool (when a proposal needs approval). The presence of a sibling reject tool provides context for when not to use it, but the description itself does not explicitly state when-to-use vs. 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 discloses the HITL-gated nature, a key behavioral trait, but does not explain what happens after proposal (e.g., pending state, approval process) 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 very short, but sacrifices details that are necessary for correct usage. While front-loaded with key info, it could be more informative without significant length increase.
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 schema and output schema existing, the description should explain the HITL flow and hint at the output. It fails to describe the return value or the proposal lifecycle, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the full tool behavior.
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 only parameter 'body' has no schema description (0% coverage). The description adds that it should be JSON but does not specify the expected structure or required fields for an AP bill, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 'Propose' and the resource 'AP bill', indicating a proposal action for an accounts payable bill. It also specifies the tool is HITL-gated, distinguishing it from direct creation tools like xero_create_bill.
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 proposing bills that require human approval (HITL-gated), but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like xero_create_bill or xero_intake_invoice, nor provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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 of behavioral transparency. It only states it retrieves info, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behaviors. For a tool that likely performs reads, the description 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler.
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 that an output schema exists (indicated in context), the description gives a useful hint of what is returned (members, share-links, pending requests). However, it does not explain the output structure or any edge cases. For a simple retrieval tool, this is moderately adequate.
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 one required parameter: workspace_id. The description does not explain what workspace_id is or how to obtain it. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the schema's 'Workspace Id' title.
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 collaboration info' and specifies three types of information: members, share-links, and pending requests. This makes the purpose explicit and distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_workspace_add_collaborator or code_workspace_create_share_link.
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 this tool is used to retrieve collaboration info, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. Sibling tools like code_workspace_add_collaborator or code_workspace_remove_collaborator are related but no comparison is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses its workflow (reads, designs, writes, tests, returns results) but lacks details on side effects, destructive actions, permissions, or error handling. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and is adequate 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?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main action, and efficiently covers the tool's purpose, process, and parameters without fluff. 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 the tool's complexity (end-to-end code change) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core workflow and return values. However, it lacks details on error handling, multiple file modifications, and differentiation from similar sibling tools.
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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates well. It explains each parameter's purpose, clarifies that 'brief' is required despite the schema not enforcing it, and adds context about the meaning of each argument.
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 plans and implements a code change end-to-end, listing specific actions like reading files, writing code, running tests, and returning a diff summary. It distinguishes itself from many sibling tools by being comprehensive, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like coding_propose_changes.
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 coding_propose_changes or coding_run_tests. It lacks explicit usage 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool routes through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, offering some transparency on authentication and authorization. However, it does not reveal side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or error handling. Given the absence of annotations, more behavioral details 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise and well-structured, with a clear first sentence stating the action, followed by routing context and a brief parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Though the tool has two simple parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not mention what the tool returns after running the action. Given the large sibling list, additional context about the action's purpose or typical use cases would improve completeness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string. This goes beyond the schema's defaults, though it omits format constraints or examples.
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 the tool runs the 'content domain agent action sync_analytics' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling content tools by naming a specific action. However, it does not explain what sync_analytics achieves, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. The description lacks any context about the tool's role relative to other content or analytics tools, leaving the agent to deduce appropriateness without direct 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?
No annotations provided; description implies it drafts messages but does not clarify if it actually sends them or just generates text. Missing details on auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The behavioral scope is partially described but insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Well-structured with a purpose paragraph followed by a bullet-like Args list. Front-loads the main action. Could be slightly more concise, but no wasted sentences.
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?
Output schema exists but description does not mention return value (e.g., drafted message). Lacks prerequisites (e.g., contact must exist). Adequate for a drafting tool but missing some context.
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?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description carries full burden. It lists all 5 parameters with concise explanations, including valid values for 'channel' (email, linkedin, sms) that are not in schema enums. Could improve with format or constraints for 'intent' and 'tone'.
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 it drafts a personalized outbound message (cold email, LinkedIn, etc.) for prospects, specifying the context (ICP, value props, role, recent activity). It distinctly separates itself from other CRM tools like crm_book_meeting or crm_enrich_contact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instructions, and does not compare with sibling 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 the full burden. It states the tool 'runs' an action and routes through a dispatcher, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, mutates state, requires specific permissions, or what side effects occur. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but behavioral traits are largely absent.
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 of context followed by parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 domain action runner with 2 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter meanings. However, it lacks usage examples, error handling details, and behavioral outcomes beyond execution.
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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema's title and type 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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the specific resource 'onboarding_health' in the customer_success domain. The purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling customer_success tools like 'customer_success_chat' or 'customer_success_health_score_report'.
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 routing under the user's JWT, tenant, and company scope, implying authentication context. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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 carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions routing and scope but fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool is destructive. For a creation 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (three sentences plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the action name. However, it could be more structured by separating behavioral notes from parameter descriptions.
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?
An output schema exists but the description omits any explanation of return values. For a creation tool, the agent likely needs to know what is returned. The description compensates for low schema coverage on parameters but lacks output context.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This clarifies both parameters beyond their names and defaults.
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 it runs the 'create_sales_collateral' action, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_marketing_collateral' via the tool name. It specifies the scope (JWT, tenant, company) and that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher.
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 (e.g., document_intelligence_create_marketing_collateral). It only mentions routing and scope 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains what the tool outputs but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the model is persistent, whether it modifies any state, or if any authentication is needed. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but is only partial.
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, with a clear opening sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence is informative, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose. No extraneous content.
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?
The description lists outputs but does not explain how the model is used after creation, prerequisites for the target company, or how the tool integrates into a workflow. The contradiction regarding target_company being required versus optional in the schema reduces completeness. Given complexity and presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps.
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 description provides meaningful explanations for each parameter in an Args section, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is described with its role, though the 'message' parameter is vague ('Free-text objective'). Overall, it adds substantial 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 tool builds an LBO model and lists specific outputs. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'finance_dcf_lbo_spreadsheet', which likely performs a similar function. The purpose is specific but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, nor does it provide context for when not to use the tool. The mention of target_company as required contradicts the schema, adding confusion.
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 claims 'draft' messages, but the 'send' parameter allows direct sending, which is a significant behavioral detail not disclosed upfront. No annotations exist to cover this. Behavioral tuning to payment history is noted but overshadows the send/draft contradiction.
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 a clear overview followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the opening sentence could be slightly more specific.
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?
Having an output schema partially reduces the burden, but the description omits important context like what happens when sending messages (actual email dispatch), prerequisites like customer data availability, and side effects. The send/draft ambiguity undermines completeness.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds necessary meaning to parameters: explains aging_bucket ranges, min_amount_usd as a filter, and send as a toggle. However, 'message' is only vaguely described as 'free-text objective for the action.'
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 specific verbs 'triage' and 'draft' to clearly indicate a workflow for Xero accounts receivable follow-up. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being Xero-specific and focused on customer-facing messages.
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 finance_dunning_outreach or finance_collections_priority. The description does not mention prerequisites or situations where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a domain agent action rather than a direct API call and mentions authentication scope, but it does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only or mutates data), rate limits, or failure behavior. The behavioral disclosure is moderate.
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 four sentences including the Args list. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no extraneous information. It is efficiently structured, though it could be slightly more informative without adding length.
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?
Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to explain return values), the description is vague about what the reconciliation review actually entails (e.g., matching transactions, flagging discrepancies). For a domain agent action, more context about the review process would help the agent select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), so the description must compensate. It provides basic descriptions for the two parameters ('Free-text objective' and 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'), adding some meaning beyond the schema's title and type. However, the descriptions are minimal and lack details like expected format or constraints.
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 runs the finance domain agent action 'xero_reconciliation_review', which is a specific verb+resource combination. The name and description together convey the purpose, though sibling differentiation is not explicit but implied by the unique name.
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 routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which implies when to use this tool (i.e., when triggering a finance agent action for Xero reconciliation). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives among the many sibling Xero 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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions routing but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether the action creates or modifies data), authorization requirements, or output details, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a clear top-level statement and an Args section. However, the routing explanation could be streamlined, and the docstring-style formatting adds slight overhead.
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?
While the output schema exists (not shown), the description omits return value details. The routing and parameter info are sufficient for basic use, but the lack of outcome description reduces completeness for a domain agent action.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: 'message' is described as 'Free-text objective' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though further clarity on input structure would be helpful.
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 runs a specific GTM domain agent action 'go_to_market_plan', distinct from sibling tools like gtm_launch_coordination. It specifies the routing mechanism and parameters, 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?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative GTM tools (e.g., gtm_competitive_launch_response). No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative suggestions are included, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists major actions (provision accounts, assign equipment, etc.) but does not mention side effects, reversibility, error conditions, or limits. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 one purpose sentence followed by a list of arguments. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. The argument list is slightly redundant with the schema but still clear.
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?
The tool is complex (end-to-end onboarding). The description covers main actions but omits details like handling of duplicate employees, processing time, or error scenarios. With an output schema present, the absence of return value explanation is acceptable. Overall, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief semantic hints for each parameter (e.g., 'New hire full name' for employee_name, 'YYYY-MM-DD' for start_date). However, details like allowed values or constraints are missing for some parameters (e.g., manager_email). Adds moderate 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 starts with 'Run new-hire onboarding end-to-end' and lists specific actions like provision accounts, assign equipment, schedule day-1 meetings, etc. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hr_offboard (offboarding) and hr_lookup (lookup), making the tool's 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hr_lookup to check employee existence, hr_offboard for offboarding). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the purpose alone.
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 discloses routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope. However, it omits behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., document creation or storage), which would help the agent understand consequences.
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—one sentence plus brief args—with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains routing and authentication but lacks context on what the tool actually produces (a sales agreement packet). Given the output schema exists, return values are partially covered, but the tool's purpose and outcome remain vague.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is a JSON string. This compensates well, though examples or constraints would further enhance clarity.
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 runs the legal domain agent action 'sales_agreement_packet,' which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'legal_nda_packet' or 'legal_service_agreement_packet.' However, it could explicitly differentiate itself from those similar packet tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision 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 behavioral traits. It only states the basic function without mentioning idempotency, pagination, or whether it lists all rules. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence covering action, resource, and scope. No redundancy, fully front-loaded.
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?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. For a zero-param list tool, this is nearly complete, though it could note it is read-only.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline is 3. Description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.
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 (list) and resource (the user's HITL auto-accept rules). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, delete, get, and set for approval preferences.
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. Does not mention typical workflow contexts (e.g., before creating or modifying rules).
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 zero annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses it lists 'recent' notifications and types, but lacks details on pagination, ordering, rate limits, what qualifies as recent, or whether data is real-time. The output schema exists but is not described, so behavioral expectations are unclear.
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 short and front-loaded, with two clear parts: the action and types, then the argument. Every sentence adds value. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using a list for types), but overall efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description doesn't need full return details. However, it omits important context like pagination, ordering (by date?), and what 'recent' means. For a simple list tool with one param, it is minimally adequate but not complete.
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% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'limit: Max results (default 20)', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type and default.
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: 'List recent notifications' and enumerates types (HITL decisions, workflow alerts, system messages). This is specific and unique among sibling tools; no other tool lists notifications generically, so it is well-differentiated.
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, nor any context on prerequisites, filtering beyond limit, or when not to use it. For example, if an agent wants to mark notifications read, they would need to infer that from sibling names, not from this description.
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the deployment action ('make the site live') without explaining side effects (e.g., overwriting live site, reversibility, failure states, or permissions required). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one purpose sentence followed by a brief list of parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 deployment tool, the description lacks critical context: what constitutes a valid session? Does deployment replace the entire site or add pages? Are there rollback options? What does the output schema return? While the output schema exists, the description should at least hint at its structure or typical response. The tool's complexity warrants more detail.
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 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for page_key (optional, specific page or all). session_id is only described as 'The session ID', which adds little beyond its name. Overall, the description partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions but could be more specific about session_id's 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 clearly states the action ('Deploy'), the resource ('a page builder session'), and the result ('make the site live'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like page_builder_preview (preview before deployment) and page_builder_create (create a session).
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 explains that session_id is required and page_key is optional, with the effect of deploying a specific page or all pages. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., page_builder_preview, page_builder_unpublish), nor any prerequisites (e.g., session must be built/active).
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 like whether the operation is read-only, requires an existing session, or has side effects. It only states the output but not the underlying behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded with the main action. However, the 'Args' line repeats schema information, lightly wasting space. Overall, it is concise but could be more compact.
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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but does not explain prerequisites (e.g., session must exist), error conditions, or return value details beyond the 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning by labeling 'session_id' as a session ID. This is slightly beyond the schema's bare type info, but lacks constraints or 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('preview URL for a page builder session'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'page_builder_create' or 'page_builder_deploy' which focus on creation or deployment.
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?
While the description implies use when a preview URL is needed, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'page_builder_chat' or 'page_builder_list_sessions'. No when-not-to-use or alternative references are included.
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 behavioral traits such as read-only nature, returned data structure, permissions needed, or limitations. Only the basic function is described.
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?
Concise with a short purpose statement followed by a list of arguments. No fluff, but could be more structured with clear separation between purpose and parameters.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, lacks explanation of 'aged payables' concept, available columns, and missing behavioral context due to no annotations. Adequate but not rich.
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?
Adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and optional nature of parameters. However, does not explain valid column values or default behavior. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates minimally.
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 verb (Fetch), resource (QuickBooks aged payables report), and purpose (AP aging and vendor cash planning). Distinguishes from sibling tools like quickbooks_aged_receivable_report and xero_aged_payable_report.
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 AP aging and cash planning but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like balance sheet or cash flow reports. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, rate limits, or what happens with invalid parameters. It only lists parameters without explaining side effects or data scope.
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 a one-line summary followed by a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary repetition but could be slightly more compact by integrating the args explanation inline.
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?
With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description lacks constraints (e.g., required date format, valid values for accounting_method) and does not mention that no parameters are required despite typical usage needing dates.
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?
While the input schema has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions, the tool's description includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., start_date, accounting_method). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.
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 it fetches the QuickBooks statement of cash flows for cash-flow analysis, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools like balance sheet and profit loss reports.
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 quickbooks_balance_sheet_report. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states basic operation (list bills); lacks details on pagination, rate limits, permissions, or return format. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is short and front-loaded with purpose. Parameter list is clear. Could be improved with structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) but is efficient.
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?
Adequate for a simple list tool given output schema exists. Lacks details on output fields, filtering nuances, or QuickBooks-specific context like what defines a 'vendor bill'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but description adds context for each parameter (e.g., 'Optional bill status filter', date format YYYY-MM-DD). Does not specify allowed values for status or other 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?
Description clearly states verb 'List', resource 'QuickBooks vendor bills', and use case 'AP analysis'. Effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like quickbooks_create_bill and quickbooks_list_invoices.
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?
Implied usage via 'for AP analysis', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives 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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or potential side effects. It also omits details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the result is paginated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It includes both the primary action and the parameter explanation. However, it lacks structural elements like a separate usage section or clear separation of concerns.
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?
The description covers the single parameter adequately. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. However, it does not mention default limit behavior, whether the list is complete or paginated, or error conditions. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate.
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 0% description coverage for the 'limit' parameter. The description adds meaningful context by specifying the parameter's purpose ('Maximum locations to return') and its valid range (1-50). This compensates well for the schema gap.
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 'the Shopify shop's locations', and further clarifies what types of locations are included (warehouses, retail locations, fulfillment centres). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list other Shopify entities like discounts or collections.
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 prerequisites, context for use, or when not to use it. The sole purpose statement does not help the agent decide between similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It mentions JWT/tenant/company scoping, implying authentication. The action is likely a non-destructive computation, but no explicit statement about side effects, rate limits, or idempotency 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?
Very concise and well-structured. The key purpose is front-loaded, and the Args section uses clear bullet points. Every sentence adds value without repetition.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values don't need description. However, the description is sparse on context: it doesn't explain what kind of optimization problems this tool solves, prerequisites, or typical use cases. For a domain agent action, more context would be helpful.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string, adding clarity beyond the schema's defaults and types. However, it doesn't describe expected format or examples for the JSON input.
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 runs the 'solve_optimization' domain agent action. The description specifies the action name and differentiates from siblings like 'solver_chat' or 'solver_constraint_satisfaction' by referencing a specific action. However, it lacks further context on what 'solve_optimization' 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains routing and authentication, but doesn't mention scenarios where it's appropriate or suggest alternatives for different optimization needs.
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 full burden. It only mentions idempotent replay safety, lacking details on authentication, rate limits, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, conveying the core purpose and a key 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?
The description covers basic purpose and safety but the output schema exists, reducing the need to explain return values; however, it lacks context about when to use the tool after approval.
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 clarify what the approval_id parameter represents, relying on the tool name and 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 verb 'Execute' and the resource 'previously-approved Stripe decision', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stripe_approve and stripe_reject.
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 after an approval but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide 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 burden. It states the core function (get active run if exists), but does not disclose error handling (invalid workspace_id), return format details (though output schema may cover), or any side effects. The minimal description lacks behavioral depth for a tool with no annotation support.
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 zero waste. Every word serves a purpose, efficiently conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 param) and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete by explicitly stating that the tool returns null if no active run exists. It covers the primary behavior but leaves minor ambiguity for error cases.
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 description links workspace_id to 'workspace', adding context beyond the schema's bare title. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it does not elaborate on workspace_id's origin, format, or constraints. It provides minimal but helpful semantic connection.
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 'Get', resource 'active coding run', and scope 'for a workspace', with the conditional 'if one exists' to indicate possible null result. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like code_workspace_get_run (by ID) and code_workspace_runs (list all runs).
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 by specifying 'active' run, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like code_workspace_get_run or code_workspace_runs. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'runs' an action and 'routes' through a dispatcher, without clarifying whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or is idempotent. For a query-like tool, this is a significant omission.
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 very concise, consisting of three short sentences plus a brief Args list. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by routing context and parameter definitions. There is no redundant or extraneous 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?
Given the simple 2-parameter schema and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are important for selecting this tool among many commerce siblings. The description 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds some meaning beyond the raw schema, but it fails to specify allowed keys, formats, or behavior when inputs are omitted. The description is minimally helpful.
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 executes a commerce domain agent action 'revenue_by_product'. The name is self-explanatory, and the description reinforces the specific purpose of retrieving revenue data segmented by product. This distinguishes it from siblings like commerce_revenue_by_channel.
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 routing under JWT/tenant/company scope, implying automatic authentication handling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as commerce_revenue_by_channel or commerce_margin_analysis. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher with JWT/tenant/company scope, but does not disclose whether the scan is read-only or mutating, what side effects occur, or any restrictions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 plus a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or irrelevant information. The structure is well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), return values are not required. However, the description omits what constitutes an anomaly, the kind of results expected, and any prerequisite conditions. It is minimally viable but lacks depth for complex decision-making.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema defaults, though it could be more precise about input structure.
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 'Run the commerce domain agent action transaction_anomaly_scan', specifying a specific verb and resource (scanning for transaction anomalies). This distinguishes it from sibling commerce tools like commerce_chat or commerce_ab_test.
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. It lacks explicit scenarios, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'audits' and 'returns' a list, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, mention side effects, or describe behavior under edge cases (e.g., empty pipeline).
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 covering purpose and output flags, followed by a three-line parameter list. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy, front-loading the key action and result.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (audit with output schema), the description explains what it does and parameter usage but lacks behavioral details (read-only guarantee) and usage context. The output schema likely covers return values, so that gap is acceptable. Missing guidance on when to run this audit or expected outcome for clean pipelines.
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?
Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds essential meaning: 'owner_email: Pipeline owner; empty = whole team' and 'min_amount_usd: Filter to deals above this amount' are clear. However, 'message: Free-text objective for the action' is vague and could be more specific about its 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 uses a specific verb 'Audit' and resource 'active sales pipeline', detailing exactly what issues are flagged (stalled deals, missing next-steps, optimistic close dates, stage-fit mismatches) and the output (prioritised action list). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like salesforce_pipeline_report which likely provides a standard report.
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, such as crm_query_data or salesforce_pipeline_report. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools 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 provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states what data is returned (transcript, status, agent decisions) but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately short and front-loaded.
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 (single parameter, has output schema), the description is nearly complete. However, it could provide minimal guidance on sourcing execution_id from list_voice_executions.
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 execution_id parameter. There is no indication of its format or how to obtain it, so the description fails to add 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 'Get a voice execution detail (transcript, status, agent decisions)' uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource clearly. It distinguishes from siblings like list_voice_executions by specifying that it retrieves detailed information for a single execution.
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 use for retrieving details of a known execution, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like list_voice_executions. 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?
The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing some transparency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or what the action actually does (e.g., whether it modifies data). With no annotations, this is partial coverage.
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 (3 sentences plus arg list) and front-loaded with the core purpose. No redundant 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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and sibling tools, the description could be more complete. It fails to explain what tax deadline alerts are or what the domain agent does, leaving the agent with a vague understanding of the tool's actual functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief semantics: 'message: Free-text objective' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds value but is minimal for a 2-parameter tool.
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 it runs the GRC domain agent action for tax deadline alerts. The verb 'Run' and resource 'grc domain agent action `tax_deadline_alerts`' are specific. It distinguishes itself from the legal sibling tool by being in the GRC domain.
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 the legal tax_deadline_alerts tool. It does not explain appropriate scenarios for using free-text vs structured inputs, 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 provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states 'List artifacts' without disclosing pagination, order, return format, rate limits, or any side effects. Lacks depth for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the main action. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple structure (1 optional param, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacking context on output format, possible artifact types list, or pagination. It does not fully prepare an agent for correct invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds examples for artifact_type ('chart', 'report', 'code', 'csv'), providing useful semantic guidance. Could be more exhaustive or precise.
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 lists artifacts (charts, reports, etc.) from agent runs. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_artifact' by implying a plural result. The verb 'list' and resource 'artifacts' are 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 vs alternatives (e.g., get_artifact). No context on prerequisites or preferred scenarios. The description is purely functional.
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 that the tool returns a list of domain agents and their supported actions, which is helpful. However, it does not mention any behavioral details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the list is paginated. The description 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the purpose concisely, the second adds a clarifying detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any redundant or irrelevant information.
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 has no parameters and has an output schema (implied by context signals), the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It does not need to describe return values as the output schema handles that. The description is nearly complete for a simple list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there is no need for the description to add parameter details. The description does not repeat schema info, which is appropriate. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 lists all available domain agents and their capabilities, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('domain agents'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like 'list_domain_actions' or 'list_connected_integrations' by its focus on domain agents as a whole, though it does not explicitly differentiate.
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, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites or typical use cases. Given the large set of sibling tools, this is a notable omission.
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 states the tool routes through a dispatcher but does not disclose whether it is read-only or destructive, what side effects occur, or any error conditions. The term 'action' implies some operation, but behavioral traits are lacking.
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, consisting of two sentences and an argument list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, avoiding unnecessary details.
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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it could be more complete by describing what the pricing intelligence action accomplishes or its typical use cases. As is, it is adequate but lacks some context about the agent's behavior.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the tool's description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining that 'message' is a free-text objective and 'inputs' is an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 that the tool runs the product domain agent action `pricing_intelligence`, providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like `commerce_pricing_intelligence`, and the exact output or functionality of pricing intelligence is not explained.
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 routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope, which gives context on authorization but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons 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 are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires specific permissions. Given the lack of annotations, more transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter descriptions. Every sentence is necessary and clear. No redundancy.
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?
The description explains the core purpose and parameter semantics but omits details about output (despite having an output schema) and behavioral characteristics. With no annotations, more context is advisable for a tool with this complexity.
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%, but the description provides brief parameter explanations (reports defaults, date format). This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but lacks detail on constraints or allowed 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 tool builds a 'QuickBooks controller snapshot' with 'company info, preferences, and core financial reports.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other QuickBooks tools like individual reports or entity operations.
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 includes parameter descriptions but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., individual QuickBooks reports). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance 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 should disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or data volume. It only mentions basic filtering, omitting crucial details such as default date range, maximum result handling, or ordering.
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 and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Args section is clearly structured with minimal redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, important context is missing: default behavior when no filters are applied, pagination, and whether it returns all invoices or a subset. This leaves gaps for an agent.
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% description coverage, so the description's Args section adds meaning: status filter with examples, date format, and max_results default. It compensates well but could specify allowed status values more precisely.
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 lists QuickBooks invoices for the active company, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling list tools like quickbooks_list_bills or quickbooks_list_customers.
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., quickbooks_get_invoice for single invoice, or other list tools). The description lacks context for choosing this over 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 carries the full burden. It only states 'Fetch... report' without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only status, pagination behavior, return format, or potential performance constraints. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by four bullet-style lines for parameters. No fluff or repetition. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (flagged), return values are covered. However, the description lacks context about when to use this specific report over other QuickBooks reports, and it does not mention any special behavior (e.g., date range requirements). It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by adding format guidance for start_date and end_date ('YYYY-MM-DD'), specifying the allowed values for accounting_method ('Accrual or Cash'), and noting that columns is optional. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.
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 'Fetch the QuickBooks trial balance report for GL tie-out and close review.' It uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the exact resource ('trial balance report'), and adds a business context ('GL tie-out and close review'). This clearly differentiates it from other QuickBooks report tools like quickbooks_balance_sheet_report or quickbooks_profit_loss_report.
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 other QuickBooks report tools (e.g., aged payables, profit & loss). There are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or mentions of alternatives. The user must infer from the tool 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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions combining search with AI-synthesized answers and the available search modes, but it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. The description lacks transparency about side effects and operational constraints, which is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 extremely concise, using ~50 words plus the Args list. It front-loads the purpose and feature, then gives usage guidance, then lists parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool has only 3 parameters and an output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. The description covers the core functionality and parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., does it return raw results or synthesized answers?), pagination, or limitations. Given the simplicity, it is fairly complete but could be slightly more thorough.
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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description's Args block adds necessary meaning: it explains 'query' as the search query or question, 'folder_path' as the folder path (with default '/'), and 'search_mode' with its allowed values and default. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions, though more detail on folder_path format would improve it.
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 within a specific folder using semantic or keyword matching, and mentions AI-synthesized answers. It specifies the verb (search) and resource (folder), and provides a use case ('Good for asking questions about documents in a specific folder'). This distinguishes it from broader search tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_documents' or 'document_intelligence_search_folder'.
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 gives an implied use case ('Good for asking questions about documents in a specific folder') but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools. With many sibling search tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.
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 routing through a domain-agent dispatcher under auth scope, but omits critical details: side effects (if any), permissions required, rate limits, or what happens on failure. The return value is not described, even though an output schema exists. This is insufficient for an action-oriented tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: three short paragraphs with clear separation of purpose, routing context, and parameter arguments. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the main action is front-loaded. No wasted words.
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?
While the tool is simple (2 optional params, no required fields), the description lacks an explanation of what the tool returns or how the output can be used, despite the existence of an output schema. It also fails to provide usage guidance or behavioral context. The coverage is adequate for a basic understanding but incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 description adds meaningful information beyond the schema: 'message: Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs: Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. Since schema coverage is 0%, this fills a key gap. However, it could specify allowed keys or format for inputs for greater precision.
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 'Run the smarthome domain agent action `chat`', specifying a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from other domain-specific chat tools (e.g., coding_chat, commerce_chat) by explicitly naming the smarthome domain. The routing context adds clarity without 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 (e.g., other chat tools like smarthome_command_plan or smarthome_scene_assist). There are no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statements, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name.
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 only states that it sends a message to an agent and lists action examples. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the call is synchronous, what happens if the agent is unavailable, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this 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 concise, with a few sentences and a structured args block. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. While it could be slightly more compact, it is not 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?
The description explains the purpose and provides parameter examples. Since an output schema exists (context signal indicates 'Has output schema: true'), it does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks information about error handling or the nature of the agent response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by describing 'message' as 'Your message or question for the document agent' and 'action' with examples ('chat', 'compare_versions', 'export_evidence_pack', etc.). However, it does not explain the expected format of the message or provide a complete list of actions.
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 'Send a message', the resource 'document intelligence agent', and the scope: 'general document questions, analysis, comparisons, or any document operation not covered by the specific tools above'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing more specific document tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use this for general document questions, analysis, comparisons, or any document operation not covered by the specific tools above', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies when not to use (when a specific tool exists) but does not list the specific sibling tools or give explicit 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 only notes that it routes through a domain-agent dispatcher. It does not disclose side effects, destructive behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. For a tool with no annotations, the description should bear more responsibility for 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 concise (three sentences) and well-structured with a clear function statement followed by a routing note and parameter list. It avoids unnecessary fluff and is 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?
While the description explains the tool's action and parameters, it lacks detail about the output schema or what the dashboard summary returns. Given that an output schema exists but is not shown, the description should at least hint at the nature of the response (e.g., key metrics, format).
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 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional JSON string. This goes beyond the schema defaults and titles, significantly aiding the agent.
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 it runs a specific commerce domain action 'dashboard_summary' and distinguishes from sibling tools through its unique purpose. The tool name itself is descriptive, and the description reinforces that.
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 routing under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other commerce tools like commerce_revenue_by_channel), nor does it provide any 'when not to use' 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions creation of a presentation but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, output behavior, or whether the action is irreversible. The output schema exists, which partially mitigates the need to describe return values, but behavioral traits like mutation and storage implications are assumed.
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 and well-structured. The purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by a clean bullet-like list of parameters with explanations. Every sentence is necessary; no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks context about when to choose this tool over similar slide creation tools, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or any constraints. For a simple creation tool with few parameters, it is minimally adequate but could be more informative.
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?
Schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does so by providing concise explanations for each parameter: title ('Presentation title'), body ('Optional content description or outline'), and target_suite with enumerated storage options. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema which only has type and default.
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 purpose: 'Create a new presentation / slide deck.' It includes a specific verb ('create') and resource ('presentation/slide deck'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'document_intelligence_create_slide_deck' or other document creation tools, though the target_suite parameter provides some distinction.
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 some usage guidance by listing parameter meanings and three options for target_suite. However, it lacks explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., document_intelligence_create_slide_deck) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the routing mechanism but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or any side effects. It also omits information about error handling, rate limits, or required permissions.
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 89 words and includes a docstring-style 'Args:' section. It is relatively concise but could be more front-loaded with the tool's purpose rather than the routing mechanism. Every sentence adds value, but a slightly more compact structure would improve it.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return value details are not needed. With 2 parameters and low complexity, the description covers the basic function and routing. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, leaving gaps for an AI agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This provides meaningful context beyond the default values and type information in 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 it runs the engineering domain agent action 'query_analytics', distinguishing it from other engineering tools like engineering_chat or engineering_compare_model_versions. It specifies the verb 'Run' and the resource 'analytics query', 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions routing through the domain-agent dispatcher with JWT, tenant, and company scope, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like engineering_chat or other query tools. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not reveal whether the tool is read-only or writes forecast data, nor does it mention required permissions, side effects, rate limits, or state changes. The term 'build' is ambiguous regarding persistence.
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 highly concise: one summary sentence followed by a structured Args block. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the information is front-loaded for quick scanning.
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?
The description covers the core purpose, inputs, and outputs adequately given the presence of an output schema (handling return values). However, it omits prerequisites (e.g., whether ledger data must be pre-loaded) and does not explain the 'rolling' concept, leaving some contextual gaps for a complex forecasting tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must supplement. It provides meaningful context for all four parameters: 'message' is explained as a free-text objective, 'horizon_months' includes default, 'scenario' lists valid options (base, bull, bear, custom), and 'driver_overrides' gives an example format. This adds substantial value beyond raw type information.
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 ('Build a rolling cash and P&L forecast'), the data sources ('ledger data and company drivers'), and the output ('month-by-month projection, scenario comparisons, written interpretation'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'finance_forecast_interpretation' (interpretation only) and 'finance_forecast_sensitivity' (sensitivity analysis) by specifying the full forecasting model construction.
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 'finance_automl_forecast', 'finance_forecast_sensitivity', or 'finance_forecast_interpretation'. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., ledger data availability) or conditions that make this tool preferable.
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 any behavioral traits such as required authentication, rate limits, side effects (e.g., creation of a new resource), or error conditions. The description 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 concise and uses a clear list format. It front-loads the purpose and then lists parameters. However, it could be more structured with sections or additional context.
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 that an output schema exists, the lack of return value explanation is acceptable. However, the description does not cover side effects, prerequisites, or permission requirements for a creation action. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it specifies that repo is in 'owner/repo format', title is required, body is markdown, and assigns labels and assignees. The schema has 0% coverage, so the description provides essential parameter semantics.
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 an issue') and the resource ('in a repo'). Among sibling tools like github_add_labels_to_issue or github_get_issue, this is uniquely identifiable as the creation tool.
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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implied that you use it to create an issue, but no when-not or alternative recommendations are 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 carries full burden but only states it lists/searches messages. It provides a query example but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or what the output contains (though output schema exists).
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 a one-line purpose and arg list, but could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema, return value details are not needed, but the description lacks usage guidance and complete parameter descriptions, making it adequate but not comprehensive for a listing tool.
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 compensate. It explains 'query' with an example and 'label_ids' with an example, but 'max_results' only has its name repeated without any description, leaving incomplete parameter semantics.
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/search' and the resource 'Gmail messages', distinguishing it from sibling Gmail tools like gmail_get_email and gmail_modify.
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 searching emails with a query example but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gmail_get_email for single email retrieval.
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 states the tool shows current and upcoming time-off but does not disclose that it is read-only, what data is returned (e.g., employee names, dates), or any authentication or rate limit considerations. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'BambooHR who's-out roster (current and upcoming time-off).' It is front-loaded with the tool's domain and purpose, contains no extraneous words, and earns its place.
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 (no parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description is sufficient to understand its basic function. It identifies the data source and temporal scope. However, it could mention the return format or typical fields (e.g., employee name, leave type), but the output schema likely covers this.
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, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Since there are no parameters to describe, the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. This is acceptable and no deficiency exists.
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 returns a 'who's-out roster' for 'current and upcoming time-off' from BambooHR. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'hr_live_leave_balance' (balance info) and 'hr_leave_request' (submitting requests), 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, suitable contexts, or scenarios where sibling tools (e.g., hr_live_leave_balance) would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and 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 must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the memo's content but does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies the contract or creates external artifacts, or what permissions are needed. Limited behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and lists parameters in a clear format. A minor improvement could be separating the parameter list from the narrative for better scanability.
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 there is an output schema (not shown), the description mentions the memo's content. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., playbook is important but optional), error handling, or steps after memo generation. Adequate but with gaps.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter: message (free-text objective), contract_url (required URL), playbook (with examples), and counterparty_name (memo context). This adds significant meaning beyond 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 tool reviews a contract and produces a redline-ready memo covering deviations, missing clauses, risk terms, and proposed edits. The verb 'review' and resource 'contract' with specific output types distinguish it from sibling legal tools like legal_compliance_monitoring or legal_document_drafting.
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 contract review with a playbook, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., legal_nda_packet, legal_compliance_monitoring) or provide exclusion criteria. No direct guidance on 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists contacts and can filter by search. It fails to mention pagination behavior, sorting, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict behavior reliably.
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 at two sentences plus an Args list. The key information is front-loaded. It wastes no words, though the Args list could be integrated more elegantly.
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, the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, it omits important details like pagination, default behavior without search, and whether sorting is supported. An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally, but behavioral gaps remain.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'search' as a filter and 'limit' as 'Max results (default 20)'. This goes beyond the schema's raw type and default, providing practical semantics.
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 lists CRM contacts and mentions optional filtering. The verb 'list' and resource 'CRM contacts' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a generic CRM contact lister rather than a specific platform variant.
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 optional search filtering and a limit parameter, implying usage scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over similar sibling tools (e.g., clio_list_contacts, freshbooks_list_clients), nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool uploads for indexing but omits critical details like file size limits, format restrictions, whether documents can be overwritten, or any idempotency guarantees.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with exactly one line for the purpose and a brief parameter list. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 the presence of an output schema (though not described), the description is incomplete. It lacks details about return values, error conditions, supported file types, or any post-upload behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming and illustrating both parameters ('filename' with an example, 'content' as text). This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type information.
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 ('Upload'), the resource ('document to the RAG knowledge base'), and the purpose ('for indexing'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'rag_query' which searches rather than uploads.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rag_query'. It implies usage for adding documents to the knowledge base but lacks explicit context about prerequisites 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 the full burden. It states the tool performs semantic search across all documents and returns ranked results with snippets and source paths, indicating read-only behavior. However, it omits details about authentication, rate limits, 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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for usage, one for return format, then a parameter list. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, usage context, parameters, and return type. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in common scenarios.
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 description compensates for 0% schema coverage by explaining each parameter: query is natural language or keywords, folder_path is optional with an example, and top_k has a default. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles.
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 'Search across all documents using semantic search,' specifying the verb (search), resource (documents), and method (semantic). It distinguishes from similar tools like grep_documents by emphasizing semantic relevance. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'document_intelligence_search_documents'.
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 advises using this tool to find documents relevant to a topic, question, or keyword, which implies when to use it for semantic search. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., for exact matches).
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 asynchronous behavior and polling mechanism, but contradicts itself by labelling query as 'required' in description while schema shows it as optional with default null. No mention of side effects, rate limits, or error handling.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action, then return value and next step. No extraneous words.
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?
With output schema present, return value is adequately described. However, parameter contradiction and lack of query syntax guidance leaves gaps. Adequate but not complete.
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?
Adds 'Bulk-operation GraphQL query (Shopify bulk-operation syntax)' which gives some semantics, but falsely claims the parameter is required when schema allows null. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but does so poorly.
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?
Specifies verb 'Submit' and resource 'Shopify bulk-operation query'. Mentions return of ID and reference to sibling tools for polling, distinguishing it from shopify.bulk_operation_status and shopify.bulk_operation_result.
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?
Describes when to use (submit bulk query) and what to do after (poll via status tool). Provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the fact that it returns a list of matching objects. The description is too brief for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a single sentence for purpose and a clear list of parameters. There is no wasted text, though the parameter descriptions could be integrated more effectively. The structure is front-loaded with the core action.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value details are not needed. However, the description omits context such as whether the search applies to all Square locations, case sensitivity, or required permissions. It covers the core functionality and parameters adequately but has gaps in scope and behavior.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool description explains each parameter ('object_types', 'query', 'limit') in the Args section, including an example for object_types. This adds significant meaning beyond 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Square catalog', specifying the scope as items, variations, and categories. This differentiates it from sibling tools like square_get_catalog_item (single item retrieval) and square_search_orders (order search).
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 needing to search the catalog by object types or free-text query, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as square_get_catalog_item for specific item lookups. No exclusions or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds the key behavioral trait 'HITL-gated' and specifies the body format as JSON. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as success outcomes, required permissions, 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?
Two short sentences convey the essential information with no waste. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description partially covers the tool's function but leaves the body parameter undefined. Additional details about the JSON structure 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?
The schema coverage is 0% for the 'body' parameter. The description only says 'Body is JSON', which provides minimal format guidance. It does not describe the expected structure of the JSON, which is critical for a manual journal proposal.
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 'Propose' and the resource 'manual journal into Xero', with the added context of being 'HITL-gated'. This distinguishes it from direct creation tools like xero_create_manual_journal.
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 'HITL-gated', implying it is for proposing with human approval, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any 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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auto-matching and surfacing ambiguous matches but does not indicate whether the tool modifies data, requires permissions, or has any destructive or irreversible effects. This is insufficient for a reconciliation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for core behavior followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the key action and contains no unnecessary words. Every line earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core reconciliation function but lacks details on confidence thresholds, output format, side effects, or failure modes. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It defines each parameter: message as free-text objective, account_id with behavior when empty (all accounts), and date formats. This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal titles and defaults, though the message's purpose could be clearer.
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 reconciles Xero bank-feed transactions against the ledger, with auto-matching for high confidence and surfacing ambiguous matches for review. This distinguishes it from siblings like finance_reconciliation_exceptions and finance_xero_reconciliation_review.
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 the tool is for reconciliation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like finance_reconciliation_exceptions or finance_xero_reconciliation_review. No when-not-to-use 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Returns line-level matches with context' and explains parameter defaults. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (all documents), any limitations (e.g., text-only content), or potential side effects. The description is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line summary followed by a docstring-style parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. There is no fluff or repetition.
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 has 5 parameters, 1 required, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, parameters, and behavior (line-level matches). However, it does not specify the document source or any limitations, which could be useful for an agent. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The description lists each parameter with a brief explanation (e.g., pattern is 'The search pattern (regex by default, or exact string)'), adding meaning beyond the schema. While it could detail regex syntax or output structure, the coverage is good.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Grep across document content using pattern matching (like ripgrep).' It specifies the action (grep), resource (document content), and method (pattern matching). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_documents or rag_query, which also search documents but likely use different approaches.
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 clear use case: 'Use this to find exact text matches, regex patterns, or specific strings across all documents.' However, it does not include guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among sibling tools, which could help the agent choose correctly.
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 bears full transparency burden. It discloses routing through a dispatcher with auth scope, but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, rate limits, or what constitutes a destructive action. For a chat tool, the transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single sentence for purpose and a brief, structured Args list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy or fluff. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 has an output schema (which covers return values), the description sufficiently covers invocation context, parameters, and scope. It lacks examples or notes on error behavior, but for a simple chat tool this is largely complete.
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 0% description coverage, but the description explicitly documents both parameters: message as 'free-text objective' and inputs as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying intent and format.
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 runs the gtm domain agent action 'chat' and explains routing under JWT/tenant/company scope. However, among many sibling chat tools (commerce_chat, crm_chat, coding_chat), it does not differentiate what makes GTM-specific chat unique, leaving purpose slightly generic.
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 is for GTM domain tasks via domain agent, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternative domain agent chats or when not to use it. The 'when-to-use' is only inferable from the tool name, not from the description.
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 says 'health check' but does not disclose what the check entails (e.g., what happens if tokens are invalid, whether any side effects occur, or what the response format is). The agent cannot infer safety or destructiveness from this description alone.
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 that conveys the essential information without extraneous text. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word 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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, the description lacks any indication of what a health check result looks like or how to interpret it, which could be important for agent decision-making. It is adequate but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and the input schema is empty, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by specifying which connectors are covered, which is not evident from the schema. This provides context beyond the structural 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 'Health check for HR connector tokens' with specific connectors listed (BambooHR, Greenhouse, Monday). It uses a specific verb ('health check') and resource ('HR connector tokens'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like hr_live_advance_application or hr_live_whos_out.
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 its usage (checking token health) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other hr_live_* tools or alternative approaches. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool routes through a dispatcher and requires certain scopes, but it does not describe side effects, idempotency, or whether the action is read-only or mutating. The behavioral insight beyond the 'run' verb 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise: three sentences plus a two-parameter list. It is front-loaded with the primary action and efficiently conveys the necessary information without extraneous content.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the action, auth context, and parameters. However, it does not describe what 'plan_domain_intelligence' does beyond running it, leaving the agent to infer from the name. Behavioral gaps are not addressed.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It describes 'message' as a free-text objective and 'inputs' as an optional JSON string for structured inputs. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions, though it could include examples or validation 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 clearly states the tool runs the 'intuit domain agent action `plan_domain_intelligence`'. It identifies the specific resource and verb, distinguishing it from sibling tools with similar names by specifying the 'intuit domain' scope.
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 routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, providing context about authorization. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is implicit from the name.
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 implies non-destructive read behavior but does not disclose details like pagination (despite having a 'max_items' parameter), error handling for invalid folders, or whether it returns only files vs. both files and folders. For a simple list operation, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: a one-line summary, followed by contextual usage, then parameter details. Every sentence is necessary; no redundancy or verbosity.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown), return value details are not required. The description covers the basic purpose and parameter meanings. However, it lacks context on edge cases like folder not found or returned item structure (files vs. folders), which slightly reduces completeness for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining each parameter: specified default paths, example source systems, and default max_items count. This compensates well for the lack of schema-level descriptions.
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 documents') and resource ('folder or entire document library'), with examples like 'root'. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tool 'search_folder', which could be used for similar purposes but with different semantics.
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 explicit usage guidance ('Use this to browse the document library, see what files exist, and explore folder structures'). It does not, however, indicate when to avoid this tool (e.g., for querying specific documents) or mention alternatives like 'search_folder'.
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 convey behavior. It lacks details on whether the tool is read-only or destructive, side effects, or authentication requirements. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise: two short sentences plus bullet-point Args. Every line adds value, front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy.
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 no annotations and an output schema (absent from description), the description misses behavioral context and usage nuances. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete for a chat action with potential side effects.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'inputs' is an optional JSON string. This helps the agent understand parameter usage 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's purpose: 'Run the notion domain agent action chat.' This specifies a distinct action (chat) within Notion, differentiating it from sibling notion CRUD 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?
The description mentions routing through a dispatcher but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other notion tools (e.g., notion_search, notion_query_database). Usage context is implied but not explicit.
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 cover behavioral traits. It mentions the optional query filter and default max_results, but does not disclose default behavior (e.g., returns all vendors when query is omitted), pagination, rate limits, or other side effects. It is minimally adequate for a simple read 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 concise: one sentence plus two argument lines. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary detail.
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 and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers functionality. It could mention default behavior (all vendors if no query) but is otherwise complete for a straightforward list operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations: 'Optional vendor name search filter' for query and 'Maximum number of vendors to return' for max_results, which is valuable 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 'List QuickBooks vendors for the active company', specifying the verb (List), resource (vendors), and scope (active company). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like billcom_list_vendors by naming QuickBooks.
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., billcom_list_vendors or freshbooks_list_clients). It does not mention any exclusions or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It indicates a mutation action (reject) but does not describe consequences like state changes or side effects. The basic purpose is clear, but behavioral details are lacking.
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 unnecessary words. However, given the lack of parameter descriptions, it could be slightly more detailed without sacrificing conciseness.
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 rejection action, the description covers the basic purpose. However, without parameter explanations or output schema details (though output schema exists), the completeness is adequate but minimal.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on any parameters. Though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (execution_id, approval_task_id), the description fails to add meaning or usage guidance 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 (reject) and resource (pending in-call voice action). It effectively distinguishes this tool from similar siblings like approve_voice_action and modify_voice_action.
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 the tool is for rejecting pending voice actions. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, the sibling tool names (e.g., approve_voice_action) provide natural context for selection.
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. It discloses that the tool fetches a JSONL result file from a completed operation, implying it is a read-only operation. No mention of authentication, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but minimal.
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 plus a brief Args list. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no fluff. 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?
The tool has low complexity (1 optional param, no required, output schema exists). The description covers the basic function and parameter, but it omits prerequisites (like ensuring the operation is completed) and potential error conditions. Without annotations, it does the minimum.
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 compensate. It describes the parameter as 'Optional bulk-operation GID. Defaults to the latest completed.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and default, but lacks format specifics (e.g., 'gid://shopify/BulkOperation/...'). For a single optional param, it is sufficient but not exemplary.
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 ('Fetch the JSONL result file') and the resource ('completed Shopify bulk operation'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like shopify_bulk_operation_status (which checks status) and shopify_bulk_operation_create (which creates). The verb+resource+context is specific.
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 after a bulk operation completes and defaults to the latest completed, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like shopify_bulk_operation_status. 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.
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 disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions fetching status but does not explain possible status values, whether the operation is blocking, or any side effects. Since it is a read-only status check, the description could add context about non-destructive behavior, but it fails to do so.
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 plus a parameter line. The key action is front-loaded ('Get the current status'). Every sentence serves a clear purpose, and there is no unnecessary information. It is well-structured 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?
The tool is simple (one optional parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not mention that the operation is read-only or any potential error states. Given the lack of annotations and the straightforward nature, the description is adequate but could be more complete.
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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'bulk_operation_id: Optional bulk-operation GID. Defaults to the latest.' This adds meaning beyond the schema, clarifying that it is a GID, optional, and defaults to the latest operation. It effectively communicates the parameter's 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 tool's function: 'Get the current status of the most recent (or a specific) Shopify bulk operation.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('status of ... bulk operation'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'shopify_bulk_operation_create' and 'shopify_bulk_operation_result' by focusing on status retrieval. The optional parameter and default behavior are also mentioned.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only describes what it does. While the usage is implied (e.g., after creating a bulk operation), there is no guidance on when not to use it or pointers to other tools like 'shopify_bulk_operation_result' for retrieving results. The lack of explicit context reduces the score.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists collections, but does not mention that it is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects. This lack of transparency is problematic.
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 tool's purpose and parameter details. There is no fluff or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It lacks mention of pagination, default ordering, or any additional context like whether results are sorted. However, the core functionality is covered.
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?
The description explicitly documents the only parameter 'limit' with its purpose ('Maximum collections to return') and valid range (1-250). Since the input schema has no description for this parameter (0% coverage), the description fully compensates, adding clear and complete semantics.
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 lists Shopify product collections, specifying both smart and custom types. The verb 'list' and resource 'collections' are precise, and there are no sibling tools with similar purpose, so no ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. This is a significant gap.
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 for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether tags are additive or replace existing tags, nor does it mention rate limits, idempotency, or error handling for invalid IDs. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args section. Every sentence provides distinct value, and the usage guidance is front-loaded. No unnecessary 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 bulk operation, the description covers basic purpose and usage context. However, it omits critical details like behavior on existing tags (append/replace), handling of invalid IDs, and rate limits. An output schema exists but its content isn't described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds value by specifying that customer_ids accept numeric or GID format and that tags are the tags to apply. However, it does not clarify the format of tags (array) or resolve the inconsistency where description says 'required' but schema allows null.
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 specifies the verb 'Apply tags' and resource 'customers', and notes it's for batch operations in a single call. It includes practical usage context ('after RFM/segment analysis') and example tags, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like shopify_update_metafield.
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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool ('Use after RFM/segment analysis to mark a cohort'), which is helpful. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare to alternative tools for single-customer tagging, leaving some ambiguity.
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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not specify whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has pagination, or any side effects. The description only describes the search operation without safety or performance notes.
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: a one-sentence overview followed by a clearly formatted Args list. Every line is informative, no redundant or vague phrases. The structure is easily scannable for both intent and parameter details.
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?
The description adequately covers the search filters and parameter semantics, and since an output schema exists, return values do not need elaboration. However, it lacks mention of pagination behavior (e.g., cursor or next page) and whether multiple state values are supported, which are common expectations for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the tool's Args section adds crucial meaning: location_id is identified as a Square location ID, state lists valid values (OPEN, COMPLETED, CANCELED), date parameters specify RFC 3339 format, and limit indicates maximum results. This significantly compensates for the bare schema, though it could clarify required filters.
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 searches Square orders by location, status, or date range, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like square_get_order (single order retrieval) and square_list_payments (different resource) by emphasizing filtering capabilities.
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 filtering orders but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like square_get_order. It lacks guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.
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 that it lists approvals waiting for human action, implying read-only, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or whether it shows all pending items across all users. Adequate for a simple list tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. 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?
Given zero parameters and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, lacks explicit read-only declaration and any notes on authentication or scope (e.g., user-specific vs org-wide). Adequate but could be more complete.
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?
Input schema has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info since none exist.
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', the specific resource 'Stripe-orchestrator approvals waiting for human action', and distinguishes from siblings like stripe_list_invoices or list_pending_approvals by specifying the orchestrator scope and pending status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 stripe_approve, stripe_reject, or generic list_pending_approvals. The agent must infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only implies reading ('snapshot') but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention authentication needs, data freshness, scope limitations, or any side effects. The description fails to add value 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence captures the tool's purpose and scope, the second explains the optional parameter. Efficient and well-structured.
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 complexity (multi-org snapshot with multiple financial components), the description is adequate. It lists the components covered and the filtering option. The output schema exists, so the return format does not need to be described. Slight omission: no mention of whether the snapshot is real-time or cached.
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?
The input schema has one parameter 'body' typed as string with no description. The description adds full semantics by explaining it expects a JSON object of filters, providing an example with 'xero_tenant_ids'. This completely compensates for the 0% schema coverage.
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 tool retrieves a multi-org Xero financial snapshot covering cash, AR, AP, payroll, and taxes. It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('snapshot') and distinguishes itself from sibling Xero tools by mentioning 'Multi-org' and the comprehensive 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 like xero_balance_sheet_report or xero_cash_flow_report. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which other tools might be better suited for specific financial details.
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 fully explain behavior. It states it waits and returns status but does not explicitly mention that it polls periodically, that the timeout_seconds parameter causes it to stop waiting, or what happens if the run is not found. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 extraneous information. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are documented. However, the description does not address error handling, prerequisites (e.g., must have an active run), or the polling behavior in detail. Given the four parameters and the need to understand the waiting mechanism, the description 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.
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 in the schema. The description only adds meaning for run_id (default behavior), but workspace_id, timeout_seconds, and poll_interval_seconds are not explained. The description should 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The tool name and description clearly indicate it waits for a coding run to finish and returns its status. The verb 'wait' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like code_workspace_get_run (non-blocking retrieval) and code_workspace_cancel_run (cancellation).
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 usage guidance by explaining that omitting run_id waits for the current active run. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like polling with get_run.
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 basic operation (dispatching a message). It lacks disclosure of authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or any behavioral traits beyond the surface.
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 very concise: one introductory sentence with domain list, then a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It does not explain the response format, but that is handled by the output schema. Slightly more context on what happens after dispatch could improve completeness.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: domain is 'the domain agent to talk to', message is 'your message or objective', action has a default 'chat', and inputs are 'optional JSON string of additional structured inputs'. This provides clarity beyond the schema, though input format could be more specific.
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 'Dispatch a message to any domain agent on the platform' and lists available domains, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling domain-specific tools (e.g., finance_chat) by being the generic dispatcher.
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 (to talk to any domain agent) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus direct domain agents or other dispatch tools. No when-not or alternative comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists connectors and shows connection status, which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm read-only nature or disclose other behavioral details like authentication needs or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no extraneous information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete enough for the agent to understand its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools.
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 lists all available connectors and their connection status, with examples (Slack, HubSpot, Stripe). It is a specific verb+resource. However, there is a sibling tool 'list_connected_integrations' which may be similar, and the description does not explicitly differentiate.
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 viewing connectors and their status, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'list_connected_integrations'.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only describes the basic operation and parameters without mentioning any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. As a listing tool, it is likely safe, but that 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and list the parameters. No extraneous words or redundant information. It is well front-loaded with the core action.
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 (two optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context. It clearly states what the tool does and how to use its parameters. Some detail about filtering or pagination is missing but not critical for a basic list operation.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by describing 'search' as an 'Optional search term' and 'limit' as 'Max results (default 20)'. The schema has 0% description coverage, so these clarifications are valuable and compensate for the lack of schema-level 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 ('List') and the resource ('CRM deals/opportunities'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other list tools that operate on different CRM entities like contacts or tasks.
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 that this tool should be used when listing CRM deals but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. No sibling differentiation is offered beyond the resource name.
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 carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description only states the purpose and parameter; it does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authorization, or any side effects or constraints. With zero annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and one for the parameter. No fluff, every word earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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 is simple (list actions) and has an output schema (so return values are documented there), the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that the domain must be a valid existing domain agent, possibly requiring a prior call to 'list_domains'. Overall, it covers the essentials well.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no textual explanations for parameters. The description adds value by describing the 'domain' parameter with examples ('finance', 'crm', 'legal'), which helps the agent understand what values are expected. This goes beyond the minimal 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 'available actions for a specific domain agent'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_domains' (which lists domains) and domain-specific action tools by specifying it returns actions for a given domain.
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 when to use (when an agent needs to see available actions for a domain) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (like validating the domain via list_domains), or alternatives (e.g., directly invoking a domain agent). Usage is implied but not clarified.
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. Describes basic fetch operation but does not disclose behavioral aspects like data freshness, authorization needs, or error conditions. Adequate but not detailed.
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?
One-sentence purpose followed by a clear argument list. Efficiently conveys core information without unnecessary text. The argument list could be integrated into schema descriptions but remains 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?
Given 5 optional parameters and presence of output schema, description covers basic purpose and main parameters. Missing details on possible values for summarize_column_by and columns, and no context on report scope or limitations. Adequate but leaves some questions.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaningful parameter explanations: date format (YYYY-MM-DD), allowed values for accounting_method, and clarifies non-obvious parameters like summarize_column_by and columns. However, could be more specific for summarize_column_by and columns.
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 verb 'Fetch', resource 'QuickBooks profit and loss report', and purpose 'for income statement analysis'. Distinguishes from sibling QuickBooks report tools like balance sheet and cash flow reports.
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 income statement analysis but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like balance_sheet_report or cash_flow_report. No exclusions or comparisons 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 must bear full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description does not mention any side effects, state changes, or authentication requirements. It lacks transparency about what 'selecting' a company context does internally or how it affects subsequent operations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two paragraphs and an Args section. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. No fluff or unnecessary information.
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 (one parameter, no output schema content visible), the description adequately explains who should use it and what it affects. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to explain return values. The description is complete for a selection tool.
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 only parameter, company_id, has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds value by stating that the UUID should come from list_companies, which provides necessary context. However, it does not explain the format or constraints beyond the schema, partially compensating for the low coverage.
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: to select a company context for subsequent operations. It specifies the verb 'select' and the resource 'company context', and explains that it determines which CRM data, financial accounts, connectors, etc. the user will work with. The tool is distinct from domain-specific tools in the siblings list as a generic context selector.
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 explicitly states that ADMIN and TENANT users must select a company before using domain agents or other company-scoped features. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives beyond implied use with list_companies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states fetching info, implying a non-destructive read operation. However, it does not explicitly disclose permissions, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic fetch. The description is adequate but minimal.
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 that clearly states the tool's action and the fields returned. It is concise with no fluff or redundant information.
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 has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is sufficiently complete. It lists key fields returned, which adds value beyond the output schema. It does not cover error scenarios or prerequisites, but for a simple fetch, this is acceptable.
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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description does not add parameter information because none are needed. Per rubric, baseline is 3 for high coverage; the description adds no extra parameter semantics.
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 'Fetch', the resource 'connected Shopify shop's basic info', and lists specific fields (name, domain, currency, plan, timezone). This is specific and distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, including other Shopify 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?
The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is the appropriate tool for retrieving basic shop information. 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?
With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral context: messages are posted under the bot's identity, and text supports Slack mrkdwn. However, it does not disclose permissions requirements, rate limits, or error handling.
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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. Three sentences cover the core action and parameter details without any extraneous 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?
While the output schema exists (not described here), the description misses contextual details like authentication requirements, channel membership prerequisites, or error scenarios. Also lacks comparison to sibling tools.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds detailed semantics: channel format (Cxxx, #channel, Uxxx), text content (mrkdwn supported), and thread_ts usage (omit for top-level). This significantly aids correct parameter usage.
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: 'Post a message to a Slack channel or DM under the bot's identity.' The verb 'post' and resource 'message' are specific, and the context of bot identity differentiates it from other Slack actions like update or delete.
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 alternative Slack messaging tools (e.g., slack_post_ephemeral, slack_me_message, slack_schedule_message). No prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'draft invoice,' implying no finalization, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or authentication needs. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by parameter details. Every sentence is useful, and there is no extraneous information.
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?
All parameters are explained, and prerequisites are mentioned. With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. Minor gaps remain (e.g., success behavior, errors), but overall it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.
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%, but the description adds meaning for two parameters (contact_id, line_items) with format details. However, it incorrectly marks them as required while the schema allows null. This inconsistency reduces the score.
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 draft invoice in Xero' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning prerequisites (contact ID from xero.list_contacts, account codes for line items), aiding selection among similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides direct usage guidance: use contact ID from xero.list_contacts and reference Xero account codes for line items. It implies a workflow but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest 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?
Without annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It discloses the tool performs analysis and generates outputs but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention authentication requirements, or describe side effects. The description provides moderate transparency but could be clearer about what the tool does not do.
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 overview sentences followed by a parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the overview could be slightly more efficient.
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 complexity, no annotation support, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality, parameter details, and outputs (recap email draft, next-step proposals). It provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's role among many CRM siblings.
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 0% coverage, so the description's 'Args' section provides essential meaning. Each parameter is briefly explained: message as 'free-text objective', call_id and transcript_url as alternatives, and framework with listed options. This adds significant value, though message could be more specific.
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: 'Analyse a sales call recording or transcript' with specific verb and resource. It lists identifiable elements (stakeholders, objections, commitments, MEDDPICC signals) and outputs (recap email draft, next-step proposals), effectively distinguishing it from sibling CRM 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?
The description implies usage when a call recording or transcript is available and analysis is needed, and notes that transcript_url is an alternative to call_id. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other CRM tools like crm_lead_qualification or crm_objection_handling, and does not specify 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'produces a banker-grade memo' but does not disclose any side effects, data handling, asynchronous behavior, or limitations. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves significant processing and external data access.
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 very concise—two short paragraphs. The first front-loads the purpose and output, the second lists parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text.
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 has an output schema (not shown), the description appropriately does not detail return values but mentions 'banker-grade memo'. Parameter descriptions are complete. However, for a complex due-diligence tool, it could provide more context on execution time, data requirements, or whether it runs synchronously. Still, it covers the essential aspects for an agent.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains each parameter: message (free-text objective), target_company (required, despite schema showing anyOf/null), data_room_url (VDR root URL with examples), and focus_areas (optional list). This significantly adds meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.
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: 'Run a finance due-diligence pass across a target's financials' and lists specific analyses (QoE adjustments, working capital, customer concentration, red flags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like finance_qoe_workbook by emphasizing a comprehensive pass that produces a 'banker-grade memo'.
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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the many finance sibling tools. It implies a comprehensive due-diligence pass but lacks instructions on prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read operation via 'List' but does not elaborate on permissions, pagination, or return value characteristics. The description is minimal but accurate, scoring adequately for a simple listing tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: a single line header and three parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains zero unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on pagination, sorting, or default behavior (e.g., state defaults to 'open' not mentioned in description). For a list endpoint, these omissions reduce completeness somewhat.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It explains repo format ('owner/repo'), state options ('open, closed, all'), and labels as a filter requiring all labels. However, it incorrectly marks repo as required while the schema sets default null, creating a minor inconsistency. Overall, it adds significant 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 'List issues for a repo.' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like github_list_branches or github_list_pull_requests which list different GitHub resources. The parameter details further clarify the scope.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While its purpose is implied for listing issues, there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison to sibling tools like github_search_issues (if exists). The usage context is only implicitly understood.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It mentions audience tuning but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or limitations. No contradiction with 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?
Two concise sentences plus a clear arg list. Every sentence adds value; no redundancy or fluff.
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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and audience adaptation. It could mention the output format, but the schema handles that.
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 description explains each parameter: message as free-text objective, path as required file path (despite schema showing default null), and audience with specific enum values. Adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though the 'required' claim slightly misaligns.
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 'explain' and the resource 'piece of code', with details on structure and input/output. It distinguishes from siblings like coding_read_code by focusing on explanation and audience tuning.
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 code explanation with audience adaptation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., coding_read_code) or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the routing and authentication scope (JWT, tenant, company), which adds behavioral context. However, it does not state whether the action is read-only or destructive, nor does it describe side effects or rate limits. The mention of 'action chat' suggests a conversational interaction, but transparency is moderate.
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: a single-line purpose, then routing/scope, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence is relevant and front-loaded. No redundant or extraneous information.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown), so return value details are not needed. The description covers purpose, authentication scope, and parameters adequately for a simple chat tool. It could be slightly more complete by noting potential error conditions or the nature of the response, but overall it provides sufficient context.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining 'message' as 'Free-text objective for the action' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs for the action.' This adds meaningful context beyond parameter names, though no further usage details are provided.
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: 'Run the crm domain agent action `chat`.' It distinguishes itself from numerous sibling chat tools (e.g., commerce_chat, coding_chat) by specifying the CRM domain agent. The verb 'run' and resource 'crm domain agent action' are specific.
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 about routing through the platform's domain-agent dispatcher under JWT, tenant, and company scope, implying authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The agent must infer usage from the domain agent name.
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. Description implies read-only behavior by stating it produces a report, but does not explicitly declare no side effects, auth requirements, or data mutation. For a report tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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?
Description is concise: two sentences for purpose and behavior, then clean bullet-style parameter explanations. No redundant or irrelevant content. Front-loaded with key functionality.
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?
Output schema exists, so return structure is covered elsewhere. Description covers the report contents (active employees, pending starts, departures) and parameters. Could add more on what 'flags' means (e.g., counts or lists), but overall sufficient for a report tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (no property descriptions in schema). Description compensates well: explains message as free-text objective, as_of_date as snapshot date with format and default, group_by with explicit allowed values (team, role, location, manager). Adds substantial meaning beyond 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?
Description uses specific verb 'produce' and clear resource 'current-headcount report'. Details what the report includes: active employees by team, role, location; flags pending starts and recent departures. Distinct from sibling HR tools like hr_lookup or hr_compliance_check.
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?
Clearly states the tool produces a headcount report. Context implies usage for retrieving snapshot employee data. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough to guide selection among numerous HR tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains parameters but does not mention that the actual effect depends on the invoked tool, nor does it discuss potential side effects, idempotency, or error handling.
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 and well-structured: a brief introductory sentence, examples, a reference to list_connectors, and a clear Args section. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 generic nature and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It could be more complete by mentioning error handling and that the response structure depends on the invoked tool.
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 the description must compensate. It adds value by specifying that 'arguments' is a JSON string and provides an example for tool_name, but does not elaborate on the JSON format or validation 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 clearly states the verb 'Invoke' and the resource 'platform tool directly by name'. It distinguishes from the many sibling tools by being a generic invocation tool, 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'Use list_connectors to see available tools', providing a clear link for discovering tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus directly calling a specific tool, leaving some ambiguity.
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 the burden. It discloses the main steps (classification, conflicts check, drafting, fee proposal) but omits potential side effects, authorization needs, or failure modes. Some 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?
Two short paragraphs with front-loaded main sentence and a clear bullet-like args list. No wasted words, every sentence adds value.
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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers inputs and high-level behavior adequately. More detail on the workflow's side effects could improve completeness, but it is sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds value by providing brief explanations for each parameter (message, client_message, attachments, jurisdiction), including an example for jurisdiction. Descriptions are terse but add meaning 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 it runs a new-matter intake and lists specific steps (classifies matter type, conflicts-checks, drafts engagement letter scope, proposes fee structure). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the intake process.
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 when to use ('from a client message or file') but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It reveals the tool is read-only (listing pending items), but does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple list tool, this 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word serves a purpose, no repetition or fluff.
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?
The description covers the tool's purpose for a simple, parameterless list operation. An output schema exists to detail return values. However, it doesn't mention pagination or default sorting, which might be relevant for completion.
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 with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info because none exist. Baseline is 4, and the schema already fully documents the parameter's absence.
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 lists in-call HITL approvals pending caller-side decision. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('in-call HITL approvals'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_pending_approvals' and 'approve_voice_action'.
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 context (when needing to see pending in-call approvals) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 but only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, the scope of skills returned, or any side effects, though listing is typically 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and effectively communicates the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple list tool with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is sufficient. It could mention that skills are from memory, but the output schema presumably covers return format, so no major gaps.
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 is empty (100% coverage), so no parameter information is needed. The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is adequate for a tool with no 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?
Clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'skills/capabilities recorded in memory'. It differentiates itself from sibling memory tools like memory_list_entries and memory_list_events by specifying a distinct 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 Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (when needing to see recorded skills/capabilities). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tool names provide implicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Fetch' indicating a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple report fetch, this is adequate but leaves gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear Args list. Every part is necessary, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers input parameters well, but could mention output format or limitations. Overall, it provides sufficient 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: as_of_date format (YYYY-MM-DD), optional start_date and end_date with format, and columns as optional report columns. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though column options are not specified.
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 the QuickBooks aged receivables report' with a specific verb and resource, and adds purpose 'for AR aging and collections analysis'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quickbooks_aged_payable_report and other QuickBooks reports.
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 AR aging and collections analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or guidance on 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 carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool stops the agent workflow and prevents the proposed action, but does not mention permanence, reversibility, authorization requirements, or side effects on related tasks. 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences plus an Args list. It is concise, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
The tool is relatively simple; the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It lacks information about output (though an output schema exists) and does not clarify if the task must be in 'pending' state. However, for a straightforward rejection tool, it is mostly complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description provides the only semantics. It explains 'task_id' as 'The approval task UUID' and 'comments' as 'Reason for rejection', adding meaning that the schema lacks. However, it does not specify format constraints or default behavior beyond what schema offers.
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 'Reject', the resource 'pending HITL task', and the effect 'stopping the agent workflow'. It distinguishes itself from the obvious sibling 'approve_task' by being the opposite action. The context of human-in-the-loop (HITL) is explicit.
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 a pending HITL task needs to be rejected, stopping the workflow. It doesn't provide explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g., when not to use, or distinction from other reject tools like 'reject_voice_action' or 'stripe_reject'), but the context is clear enough for the intended use case.
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 the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: conservative defaults (preview mode on, PR on, deploy off) and routing with approval gates for production/cloud fixes. It explicitly states 'rather than direct mutation,' clarifying the non-destructive nature. While it doesn't cover all behaviors (e.g., rate limits, idempotency), it effectively communicates the tool's safety and routing.
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, consisting of two sentences and a brief note on defaults. It front-loads the main purpose and adds essential details about behavior without any fluff. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core request purpose, default behavior, and routing but lacks details on prerequisites, error scenarios, or the expected output format. It is adequate but not thorough, especially for a tool that initiates a workflow potentially involving approvals and deployments.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds semantic context for four parameters (preview_mode, open_pr, trigger_deploy, auto_push) by explaining their conservative defaults. However, it does not discuss the remaining 10 parameters (e.g., request, workspace_id, repository), leaving their meaning entirely to self-explanatory names. This is insufficient for a 14-parameter tool.
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: 'Request a bounded urgent production/cloud fix through the Lightbulb loop.' It specifies the verb (request), the resource (urgent fix), and the mechanism (Lightbulb loop). The name 'software_spot_weld_fix' is distinct among siblings, and the description differentiates it from general software development tools by emphasizing urgency and production/cloud impact.
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 context on when to use: for urgent production/cloud fixes that require approval gates and are not direct mutations. It implies that this tool is for bounded, urgent scenarios where conservative defaults are appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, which prevents a score of 5.
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 behavioral traits. However, it only explains the tool's purpose and input parameters, without mentioning side effects, destructive actions, authentication needs, or internal process behavior. The mention of 'through Backbone' is vague.
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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence and an 'Args' section. It is succinct but could be slightly tightened by reducing redundant phrases in the use-case list. However, it remains easy to read and front-loaded.
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?
The description lacks information about the tool's output or return values, and does not mention prerequisites, failure modes, or the workflow lifecycle. While input parameters are well-described, the overall context is incomplete for a workflow tool that likely produces side effects.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 0%, the 'Args' section in the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: objective, project_context, project_id, and source. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, clearly describing what each parameter represents.
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 'Start or continue the Lightbulb consulting project workflow through Backbone.' It provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by listing alternative actions (coding, GitHub, deployment) and specifying use cases like project ideas and build requests.
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 and when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description states to use this tool for project ideas, custom agent requests, etc., and to avoid jumping directly to coding, GitHub, or deployment. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the output (health scores and at-risk subset) but does not detail how scores are calculated, data recency, or behavior with no connected accounts.
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 with essential information front-loaded. No wasted words.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key return elements. However, it could mention what data points constitute the composite score or how the at-risk subset is derived.
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?
No parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline 4 applies.
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 returns a 'composite health score' per connected Stripe account and identifies the 'at-risk subset (score < 60)' for triage. This is specific and distinguishes it from other Stripe tools like invoice or charge management.
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 this tool vs alternatives. The description implies it's for health assessment but lacks context like 'use for overall account health checks, not for individual transactions'.
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 burden. It describes the internal pipeline (policy, simulator, Merkle audit, execute/queue) but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or whether operations are logged or require approval. Partial transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: one sentence for purpose, one for pipeline, then a clear parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.
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?
For a generic dispatcher with 4 parameters and an output schema (not described), the description is mostly complete. It covers the core inputs and the routing process. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling, rate limits, or how to interpret the output (though output schema exists).
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for each parameter: resource as 'customers', verb as 'create', op_inputs as JSON string, stripe_account_id as optional connected-account id. This adds meaningful usage context 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 'Run any Stripe-orchestrator (resource, verb) op', specifying the tool's purpose as a generic dispatcher for Stripe operations. It identifies the key parameters (resource, verb) and distinguishes itself from more specific stripe_* tools by being a universal gateway.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like stripe_create_invoice or stripe_list_invoices. While it implies it's for arbitrary operations, it lacks guidance on prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where using a specific tool might be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns identity, role, tenant, company, and access info, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not detail return format, permissions required, or potential side effects. This is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences. The first states the output, the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains why to use it and what to expect. No additional details are necessary given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, beyond the schema's structural information. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it.
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 shows identity, role, tenant, company, and access. It effectively conveys what the tool does with specific verbs and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clio_who_am_i' or 'monday_get_me', which may have overlapping purposes.
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 use cases: understanding current context, debugging permission issues, and confirming selected company. It offers clear context but does not mention when not to use the tool or list 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?
Discloses the non-final nature of the action (queues approval), which is critical. However, with no annotations, the description does not cover other behavioral aspects such as required permissions, side effects, or what happens after approval.
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: one sentence of 8 words. Every word adds value, front-loading the action and resource.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and output schema existing, the description covers purpose, key behavioral trait, and param format. Could be more complete with JSON schema or example, but is sufficient.
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 the description must compensate. The phrase 'Body is JSON' adds format guidance but does not specify the expected JSON structure. Scores a baseline 3 with slight improvement from the hint.
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 'Create a Xero proposal' and includes the key detail that it queues a human-in-the-loop approval. Distinguishes from sibling tools like xero_create_quote or xero_create_invoice.
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?
Implies usage context by stating 'queues an HITL approval', indicating this tool is for creating proposals that require approval. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is 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 explains the tool runs server-side, scoped to tenant, with Python REPL, web search, and connector access under JWT/RBAC, and clarifies it is not local execution. It does not mention potential side effects or errors but provides good transparency for an execution 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 moderately sized with a clear summary first, then a paragraph on scope, then usage and args. Every sentence adds value, but the middle paragraph could be slightly more concise. Overall well-structured and front-loaded.
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 complexity and existing output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and usage guidelines. It omits details like timeouts or failure modes, but for a generic tool with output schema, it provides sufficient context to understand what the tool does and when to use it.
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 value. It explains 'objective' as 'what you want the backbone agent to do' and 'inputs' as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs.' This adds some meaning but lacks examples or detailed constraints, making it adequate but not rich.
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 'Execute a research, analysis, or code generation task via the backbone agent.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools which are mostly domain-specific, as this is a generic execution agent.
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 explicitly says 'Use it for complex multi-step analysis, data processing, or generating code/scripts.' It gives clear context for when to use, though it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It identifies the tool as a read operation (safe), but lacks details on staleness of data, error handling, or rate limits. For a read-only tool, it is adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two sentences plus parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers basic usage but omits details like pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens if the twin is out of sync. For a list operation, this 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining resource_kind with concrete examples and specifying limit's default (50) and cap (100). Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well.
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 it's a fast read of the Stripe Digital Twin, distinguishing it from sibling tools that interact with Stripe's real-time API. It lists specific resource_kind examples (customer, subscription, invoice, charge) and specifies the use of Postgres backend.
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 usage for fast reads without Stripe round-trip time, contrasting with sibling tools like stripe_list_invoices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for real-time data) or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that it surfaces discrepancies and produces a summary, but it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only or makes changes, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The mention of a materiality threshold is good, but overall transparency is moderate.
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 and well-structured. It opens with a clear purpose statement, lists what it surfaces, mentions outputs, and then bullet-lists parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, basic behavior, parameters, and outputs. However, it could elaborate on whether the tool alters data, the role of the statement_url, and the format of the exceptions list. The existence of an output schema (not detailed) partially compensates for missing return value description.
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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists all four parameters and provides brief but meaningful descriptions: message (free-text objective), month (YYYY-MM format), statement_url (optional bank/ledger statement), and materiality_threshold_usd (skip small differences). This adds significant value over the schema, though more detail on valid message content or constraints could improve it.
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 reconciles Stripe payment activity against an accounting ledger. It details specific issues it surfaces (missing entries, mismatches, timing variances) and outputs (reconciliation summary, exceptions list). This distinguishes it from sibling reconciliation tools that deal with Xero or general exceptions.
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 the tool: when reconciling Stripe payouts against booked ledger entries. It describes the reconciliation process and parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools (e.g., finance_reconciliation_exceptions for non-Stripe reconciliation), which would be helpful.
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 provides behavioral context: it reviews transactions and proposes adjusting journals, with an auto-post threshold for small journals. It discloses that large journals are queued for approval, which is a key side effect. It does not cover reversibility or data modification details, but overall sufficient.
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 paragraphs: first explains the tool's workflow, second lists arguments. Each sentence is informative and non-redundant. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (month-end close with multiple steps) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main process: review, propose journals, auto-post small ones. It does not mention idempotency or rerunning, but is reasonably complete for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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?
Description adds meaning to all three parameters: 'period' format (YYYY-MM) and default, 'auto_post_threshold_usd' behavior, and 'message' as free-text objective. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is explained adequately.
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: 'Run a month-end close on the connected Xero org.' It specifies the resources involved (unreconciled transactions, accruals, prepayments, intercompany eliminations) and the output (proposes adjusting journals). This distinguishes it from sibling Xero tools like xero_create_invoice or finance_xero_consolidation.
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 the tool is for month-end close but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions the process of proposing journals for human approval, which suggests it is not fully automated, but lacks guidance on prerequisites 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?
Without annotations, the description bears the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool shows (reasoning, proposed action, risk assessment, evidence), providing useful context beyond the name. However, it does not mention idempotency, side effects, or constraints like whether it works only on pending tasks.
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 and one argument line. It is front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature (one parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the return details adequately. It might lack edge cases (e.g., behavior for non-pending tasks), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a tool of this complexity.
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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the text's 'task_id: The approval task UUID' adds essential meaning. This compensates well for the missing schema description, making the parameter clear.
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 retrieves full details of a pending approval task, with the specific purpose of aiding decision before approval/rejection. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'approve_task' and 'reject_task' by focusing on reading details, not taking action.
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 phrase 'before deciding' explicitly guides the agent to use this tool prior to approving or rejecting a task. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, such as directing to 'list_pending_approvals' for listing tasks first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly implies a read-only list operation but does not mention permissions, filtering, or any side effects. Given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate but minimal.
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 consists of two concise sentences. The first delivers the core purpose, and the second provides useful context about what a code workspace is. No extraneous words or repetition.
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?
For a parameterless listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the main action and resource. It explains terms but could be slightly more complete by noting that the output includes workspace IDs or status, but the output schema likely covers that.
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 and 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter details since none exist. The baseline score of 4 is appropriate; no additional meaning is required.
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 clear verb 'List' and identifies the specific resource 'all code workspaces'. It explains what code workspaces are, distinguishing this listing tool from sibling tools that perform actions on individual workspaces.
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 clearly states the tool's function: listing all available workspaces. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, the context and naming make it obvious that this is for obtaining a list before using other code_workspace_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the scope ('in user's tenant') and hints at the purpose of company selection, but does not elaborate on details like pagination or ordering. For a simple list with no parameters, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds valuable context. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema provided. The description covers the essential: what it lists and the relevance to company selection. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.
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 parameter description is not needed. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. Baseline for no parameters is 4.
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 specific resource 'companies' within the user's tenant. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'select_company' by providing context about company selection for different user roles.
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 explains when to use the tool (to list companies in the tenant) and provides context about the need for company selection for ADMIN and TENANT users. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes that the tool generates HTML/CSS/JS and is chat-based, but it does not disclose any potential side effects (e.g., overwriting previous design), rate limits, or authentication requirements. The information is adequate but not detailed.
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: three sentences plus an Args section. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds context, and the third advises iterative use. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema and simple parameters (2 required strings), the description covers the essentials: purpose, how to obtain session_id, and example message. It could mention error handling or limitations, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds value: for session_id, it states 'The session ID from page_builder_create' (clarifying source), and for message, it gives an example ('Add a pricing section with 3 tiers'). This goes beyond the bare schema titles and provides practical 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's purpose: 'Send a message to a page builder session to design or modify pages.' It specifies the resource (page builder session) and the action (design/modify). It distinguishes from sibling tools like page_builder_create and page_builder_deploy.
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 advises 'Use iterative messages to refine the design,' implying when to use (after session creation, for iterative refinement). It mentions the session_id comes from page_builder_create. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as creating a price rule that is the 'engine behind a discount code,' which gives some behavioral insight (not the complete discount creation). However, it does not disclose mutability, side effects (e.g., auto-linking to discount codes), required permissions, or rate limits. The 'after tagging' hint adds context but not enough for a higher score.
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: one sentence for purpose, one sentence for usage context, then a bulleted parameter list. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. The structure is clean and scannable.
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 has 6 parameters with specific formats (ISO-8601, value string) and an output schema exists (reducing need for return description), the description provides adequate coverage. It explains the creation context (after tagging) and parameter defaults. Missing: any note on prerequisites beyond tagging, or that price rules are part of discount code creation in Shopify, but overall sufficient for typical use.
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 0% description coverage, so the description entirely compensates. The Args section explains all six parameters: title (internal title), value_type (enum: percentage/fixed_amount), value (format with examples like '-15'), starts_at (defaults to now), ends_at (omittable), usage_limit (max uses). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare types. Minor lack of example for usage_limit holds back a 5.
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 function: 'Create a Shopify price rule (the engine behind a discount code).' It specifies a verb (Create), a resource (Shopify price rule), and provides a parenthetical explanation linking to discount codes. Among sibling tools, it is distinct from list/discount/refund tools, making purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use to roll out a targeted promotion for a segment after tagging.' This indicates when to use (after tagging customers) and suggests a prerequisite (tagging via sibling tool shopify_tag_customers_bulk). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use or mention alternatives like shopify_list_discounts for existing rules, missing the 'when-not' guidance for a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the output includes cart subtotals and customer context, and that results are 'recent,' but does not state read-only nature, required permissions, or rate limits. Some transparency, but gaps remain.
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 paragraph plus an Args list, with the purpose front-loaded. It is concise and avoids fluff, though the Args section somewhat duplicates schema information but adds necessary detail.
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 that an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. Parameters are covered adequately, and the use case is clear. Minor gaps like pagination or error handling are acceptable for a list tool with limit.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well. It adds value by specifying the valid range for 'limit' (1-250) and providing an example for 'query' ('created_at:>=2026-04-01'). Both are meaningful beyond the schema's type and default.
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 the shop's recent abandoned checkouts with cart subtotals and customer context,' using specific verb and resource. It is easily distinguishable from sibling list tools like shopify_list_collections or shopify_list_draft_orders.
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 includes the explicit use case: 'Use to compute abandoned-revenue at risk and prioritise recovery.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the use case is clear and contextually relevant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses important governance flow for non-GET requests (simulator, audit, idempotency, human-approval). However, it omits details on authentication, rate limits, error handling, or response behavior. Output schema may cover return values, but behavioral aspects are partially addressed.
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?
Description is concise with a brief overview followed by a bulleted argument list. No extraneous text. Purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the tool's nature as a raw API proxy, description covers main behavioral aspects and parameters. However, it lacks details on GET request handling, error scenarios, and execution model nuances. Mostly complete but with minor gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates by explaining all 5 parameters with examples for api_path and base_address, and listing allowed methods. However, there is a discrepancy: params is described as 'JSON object' but schema defines it as a string. This could cause confusion. Overall, adds meaningful context beyond 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?
Description clearly states it is for 'governed long-tail Stripe API request for /v1 or /v2 endpoints', distinguishing it from sibling tools that cover specific Stripe operations. The verb 'request' with scope 'long-tail' and endpoint versioning provides a clear, specific purpose.
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?
Implied usage for long-tail endpoints not covered by sibling tools, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives within Stripe family. Description notes behavioral differences for non-GET vs GET, but doesn't clarify when to prefer this over specific Stripe tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description notes the decision is real and permanent but lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Concise, front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral note and usage guideline, then parameter list. No superfluous text.
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?
Complete for a simple approval tool; covers purpose, prerequisite, parameters, and behavioral consequence. Output schema exists to handle return values.
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?
Both parameters are described with context (UUID and optional reason), compensating for zero schema coverage. No format constraints but sufficient for agent understanding.
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 tool approves a pending HITL task to allow the agent workflow to continue, distinguishing it from siblings like reject_task.
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?
Explicitly advises to review task details first with get_approval_details and warns it's a real decision. Could mention when not to use (e.g., if task should be rejected).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes a read-oriented analysis tool without indicating any destructive actions. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or permission requirements, though the nature of the tool suggests none.
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 with three lines: a clear purpose sentence and parameter explanations. Front-loaded with the core action, every sentence adds value without filler. Efficiently structured.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, optional output schema exists), the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. It does not mention prerequisites or additional context, but the output schema handles return values. Slightly incomplete for advanced scenarios.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is crucial. It explains all three parameters: 'message' as a free-text objective, 'account_id' as required CRM ID, and 'min_arr_usd' as an ARR threshold to skip accounts. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's titles and types.
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 ('Identify') and resource ('expansion and upsell opportunities for an account'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like crm_lead_qualification or crm_icp_intelligence. It specifies the basis ('current product usage, peer benchmarks, and unmet jobs-to-be-done').
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 context (identifying opportunities based on usage and benchmarks) but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool compared to alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool mentions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Merely states it's a store operation with persistence. No side effects, permissions, or limitations mentioned, but the operation is straightforward.
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 plus structured args. No fluff, 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?
Tool is simple; description covers purpose, usage, and parameters. Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds examples ('user_preferences', 'project_context') and default for namespace. Adds 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?
Clear verb ('Store'), specific resource ('platform's agent memory'), and scope ('across conversations and sessions'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_recall and memory_search.
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?
States when to use: 'persist information across conversations'. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an AI to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses creation of session, return of session ID, and behavior of force_page_builder parameter. Lacks details on security, rate limits, or session persistence.
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?
Reasonably concise with a main paragraph and an Args block. No redundant information. The Args section is justified given the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
Covers main purpose and parameters. Output schema exists (though not shown) and description mentions session ID, which aligns. Missing information on session lifecycle and prerequisites. Still, adequate for a simple creation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, so description's Args section is essential. Provides useful descriptions for brand_name, initial_prompt, and force_page_builder, including an example for initial_prompt. Could be more detailed on defaults and edge cases.
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 creates a page builder session to build websites or landing pages. Distinguishes from sibling page_builder_chat by explaining the returned session ID is used with that tool.
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?
Implies entry point by mentioning use with page_builder_chat. Does not explicitly exclude other page_builder tools, but context is clear for a creation tool.
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 exist, so description carries burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission needs, or other side effects. A basic list tool description, but adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear sentences plus a concise parameter list. No unnecessary words, front-loaded purpose, efficient structure.
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 existence of an output schema, description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose and parameters adequately. Minor gaps in pagination details, but overall complete for a list tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning to both parameters: 'account_type' as an optional filter, and 'max_results' as the maximum number to return. This compensates fully 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 it lists the QuickBooks chart of accounts for GL and statement analysis. The verb 'list' and resource 'chart of accounts' are specific and distinct from sibling list tools like quickbooks_list_bills.
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?
Identifies the use case (GL and statement analysis) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use. The resource name sufficiently differentiates from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the registration action and the purpose, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., idempotency, overwrite behavior, authorization needs). It partially covers behavior with the attach_workspace parameter explanation.
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 and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, then usage guidelines, then arguments. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or fluff content.
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 parameter count (8) and low schema coverage, the description adequately covers all parameters and usage context. It does not describe the output schema, but context signals indicate an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. Minor gap: no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., artifact ID), but overall sufficient for agent decision-making.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter: type (with enum list), uri vs content distinction, project_id, source_agent, and attach_workspace behavior. This fully compensates for the lack of 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?
The description clearly states the tool registers externally created artifacts into Lightbulb, making them discoverable and routable. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'OUTSIDE Lightbulb' and listing examples like code repos and documents, contrasting with internal create tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: whenever an agent produces something external while orchestrating Lightbulb and wants it as a first-class artifact. It provides examples and mentions discoverability via list_artifacts. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context implies alternatives (e.g., create_document for internal artifacts).
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 must disclose behavior. It correctly indicates a read-only operation and specifies default limit and owner_id requirement. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or ordering, which would be helpful for a complete behavioral understanding.
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 and well-structured, using a clear header and bullet points for arguments. No unnecessary 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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description covers all necessary input aspects. It lists all resources, explains parameter requirements, and includes default values. It is complete for a read operation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema. It explains each parameter: allowed owner types, required condition for owner_id, namespace as optional filter, and limit range. The note about numeric or GID for owner_id adds clarity.
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 reads metafields from specified Shopify resources, with a list of allowed owner types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shopify_update_metafield (write) and shopify_list_metafield_definitions (definitions).
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 explains when to use the tool, including default owner_type, when owner_id is required, and optional filters. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives but contextually distinguishes via purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the forecast is server-computed without a Stripe round-trip, and lists the output fields. This provides good behavioral insight beyond what annotations would convey, but could mention auth requirements or data freshness.
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 sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific outputs and a note on computation. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with no inputs and an output schema present, the description is complete. It identifies key outputs and the nature of the computation. No gaps remain for an AI agent to understand what this tool does and what it returns.
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 description does not need to explain parameter meaning. It compensates by describing the output fields clearly, which adds value given the baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 it provides a 'predictive forecast for the merchant' and lists specific outputs (MRR, failed-payment rate, dispute risk band, payout cashflow band). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stripe_list_invoices or stripe_create_refund, which are CRUD operations.
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 obtaining a forecast but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'server-computed; no Stripe RTT' which hints at speed but lacks explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Clearly indicates it is a read operation without side effects. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or any limitations beyond filtering.
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: one for purpose, one as bulleted parameter list. No extraneous text. Front-loaded with main action.
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?
Covers core functionality and all parameters. With an output schema present, it is largely complete. Could mention default behavior or result limits, but not critical for this simple list tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds full parameter details including allowed status values, contact_id purpose, and date format (YYYY-MM-DD). This provides essential meaning beyond 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?
Description states 'List invoices in the connected Xero organisation' with specific verb and resource, and enumerates filters. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like xero_create_invoice or xero_get_invoice.
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 listing invoices with filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like xero_get_invoice or other list tools. No exclusions or comparisons provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Even without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it extracts a structured payable with anomaly detection (duplicate, off-contract, amount drift), accepts multiple input formats (PDF, image, email body), and provides alternative input methods (URL vs text). This adds significant context beyond input schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two sentences plus bulleted Args) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. The Args section is clearly structured.
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?
With an output schema available, the description need not detail return values. It covers input formats, extraction fields, anomaly detection, and optional validation, making it complete for an intake tool without gaps.
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 each parameter: 'message' as free-text objective, 'invoice_url' as signed URL/artifact URI, 'invoice_text' as raw text alternative, and 'expected_vendor' as optional validation. This compensates completely for the 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'ingest', the resource 'accounts-payable invoice' (PDF, image, or email body), and the output: a structured payable with vendor, line items, totals, GL coding, due date, payment terms, and anomalies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xero_intake_invoice by specifying the extraction detail and anomaly detection.
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 AP invoice ingestion but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like xero_intake_invoice or create_bill tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer context from the tool's purpose.
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. Describes default behavior and provides example query syntax, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or data volume considerations.
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?
Four concise sentences: introduction, use cases, default behavior, and parameter explanation. Front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy, 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 single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and default behavior completely. No gaps in essential information.
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?
Input schema has no description for the 'query' parameter (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining the parameter as 'ShopifyQL statement' with a concrete example, adding essential meaning 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?
Clearly states 'Run a ShopifyQL analytics query against the shop's analytics warehouse' – a specific verb+resource. Lists use cases (revenue, AOV, etc.) that distinguish it from sibling Shopify tools like shopify_get_shop_info or shopify_list_abandoned_checkouts.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use for revenue, AOV, sessions, conversion, and grouped time-series metrics.' Also explains default behavior (net_sales + order_count by day for last 30d) when query omitted. Does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but context makes differentiation 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?
The description implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. Without annotations, it adequately conveys basic behavior but does not detail permissions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences with the main action front-loaded. No unnecessary information.
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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and has an output schema. The description covers purpose, usage context, and data examples, making it sufficiently complete.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 it lists connected integrations for the current company context, with examples of data sources. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by focusing on integrations.
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 explicitly says it helps understand data availability before running domain agent actions, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or list alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the behavioral context: the tool lists pending approvals that require human decision, from agent workflows. It is read-only and returns a set of tasks needing 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value without redundancy.
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?
The description is complete given the tool's simplicity: no parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema. It explains what the tool does, why it exists, and when to use it.
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?
No parameters exist in the input schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description clarifies what the tool returns (pending approval tasks), which is sufficient. No additional parameter meaning is needed.
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 'pending approval tasks waiting for your decision.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve_task and list_approval_preferences by focusing on the specific set of pending decisions.
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 explains that these are human-in-the-loop decisions from agent workflows and provides concrete examples (purchase approvals, content sign-offs, deployment gates). It implicitly guides the agent to use this before approve/reject tools, though it lacks explicit when-not or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses that it combines product usage, support tickets, billing, and CRM activity into a 0-100 score with top 3 risk drivers and recommended actions. With no annotations provided, this provides sufficient behavioral context for the agent to understand the tool's function and output.
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 three sentences plus an Args section, front-loaded with the core action and output. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient without unnecessary detail.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (integrating multiple sources for a score) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, inputs, output format, and behavioral traits. No critical gaps for agent usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context to each parameter: 'message' is a free-text objective, 'account_id' is the CRM account ID, and 'lookback_days' is the activity window. This compensates fully for the lack of 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?
The description explicitly states that the tool scores post-sale customer health and surfaces churn risks, combining multiple data sources into a score. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'crm_lead_qualification' which focuses on pre-sale leads.
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 usage for evaluating existing customers' churn risk by detailing the inputs and output. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'customer_success_churn_risk_scan' or 'crm_assess_pipeline'.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lightbulb-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RPasquale/lightbulb-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/RPasquale/lightbulb-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/RPasquale/lightbulb-mcp'

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