Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• notebook_readA
  3.7/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns all of the cells with their outputs,' which clarifies the return behavior beyond just reading the file. However, it doesn't address potential issues like file permissions, error handling for invalid paths or formats, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds some value but leaves gaps in behavioral context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose and output, the second provides useful background context about Jupyter notebooks, and the third adds a crucial parameter constraint. Every sentence earns its place without 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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, output format, and a key parameter constraint. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error handling or permissions, which are not covered by annotations or the output schema.

  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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'notebook_path' fully documented in the schema. The description adds semantic context by reinforcing that the path 'must be an absolute path, not a relative path,' which emphasizes a critical constraint. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, but the extra emphasis on the absolute path requirement justifies a higher score.

  Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships 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: 'Reads a Jupyter notebook (.ipynb file) and returns all of the cells with their outputs.' It specifies the verb ('Reads'), resource ('Jupyter notebook'), and output format ('cells with their outputs'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read' or 'notebook_edit', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning that Jupyter notebooks are 'commonly used for data analysis and scientific computing,' suggesting a context for when this tool might be appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read' (for general files) or 'notebook_edit' (for modifying notebooks), and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the path requirement.

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

• notebook_editA
  3.9/5.0
  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 key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (replaces/inserts/deletes), requires absolute paths, uses 0-indexed cell numbers, and has default values. However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects like file locking, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about Jupyter notebooks adds useful context, and the subsequent sentences provide specific usage details. It could be slightly more concise by integrating some details, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

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

  Completeness4/5

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

  Given the tool's complexity (mutation with multiple modes) and no annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, usage, and key parameters. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. However, it could improve by addressing potential errors or prerequisites more explicitly for a mutation 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context (e.g., 'Jupyter notebooks are interactive documents...', 'must be an absolute path'), but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description starts with 'Completely replaces the contents of a specific cell in a Jupyter notebook (.ipynb file) with new source,' which provides a specific verb ('replaces'), resource ('cell in a Jupyter notebook'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like notebook_read (read-only) and edit (generic). It clearly states what the tool does beyond just 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (e.g., 'Use edit_mode=insert to add a new cell... Use edit_mode=delete to delete the cell...'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like notebook_read for reading or edit for non-notebook files. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

• thinkA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 clearly states that the tool 'will not obtain new information or make any changes to the repository', effectively communicating its read-only, non-destructive nature. It also implies logging behavior and encourages concise, accurate thinking without code details, though it doesn't specify output format 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.

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is front-loaded with key information but includes an extensive example and six detailed use cases that may be overly verbose. While the example is helpful, it occupies significant space without adding critical guidance that isn't already implied. Some sentences could be condensed to improve efficiency without losing 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 simplicity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage, output schema exists) and lack of annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits adequately. The output schema handles return values, so the description needn't explain them. However, the extensive example slightly detracts from focus on core 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'thought' well-documented. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying through the example that thoughts should be structured and detailed. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate with additional syntax 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 the tool's purpose: 'to think about something' and 'just log the thought'. It specifies that it doesn't obtain new information or make changes, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit, write, or run_command that perform actual modifications. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., read or grep), keeping it from a perfect score.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'when complex reasoning or brainstorming is needed' and lists six specific use cases with examples. It also includes a caution about confirming with users when considering unmentioned changes, offering clear when/when-not guidance that helps differentiate from action-oriented siblings.

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

• todo_readA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'read'), requires a session_id parameter, returns structured data (list with status, priority, content), and handles empty cases (returns empty list). It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers core functionality well.

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

  Conciseness3/5

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

  The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, parameter info, return behavior). However, it's verbose with repetitive encouragement ('proactively and frequently,' 'as often as possible') and could be more concise. The core information is front-loaded, but some sentences don't add essential 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 simplicity (1 parameter, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return behavior adequately. It doesn't need to explain return values in detail due to the output schema, but could briefly mention error handling.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the session_id parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameter is required and suggesting how to generate it ('using timestamp command'), but doesn't provide additional semantic context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

  Purpose4/5

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

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'to read the current to-do list for the session.' It specifies the resource (to-do list) and verb (read), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'todo_write' beyond the read/write distinction implied by the names.

  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?

  The description provides extensive guidance on when to use the tool, listing six specific situations (e.g., 'At the beginning of conversations,' 'Before starting new tasks'). It also implicitly distinguishes from 'todo_write' by focusing on reading rather than writing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

• content_replaceA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it mentions the dry-run mode for previewing changes, the multi-file scope, and the directory restriction. It doesn't cover potential side effects like backup behavior or error handling, but provides substantial operational context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is efficiently structured in four sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, scope, dry-run feature, and constraint. There's no redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy 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 moderate complexity (file operations with pattern replacement), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the what, how, and constraints, though it could benefit from mentioning authentication or rate limits if 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it implies 'pattern' and 'replacement' usage and mentions 'file_pattern' matching, but doesn't provide additional context like regex support or path validation rules that aren't 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 the specific action ('Replace a pattern in file contents across multiple files') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'grep' (search only) and 'edit' (single file editing). It specifies the scope ('across multiple files') and resource ('file contents'), 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 Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Searches for text patterns across all files...') and mentions constraints ('Only works within allowed directories'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'multi_edit' or 'write' for comparison.

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

• todo_writeA
  4.2/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing behavioral traits: it explains task states (pending, in_progress, completed, cancelled), management rules (only one in_progress at a time, update immediately), and operational constraints (break down complex tasks). It doesn't cover rate limits or error handling, but provides substantial 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 excessively long (over 1500 words) with redundant examples and repetitive guidance. While well-structured with sections, it includes multiple full conversational examples that could be summarized. The core information could be conveyed in 20% of the length without losing 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's complexity (task management system) and lack of annotations, the description provides comprehensive context: purpose, detailed usage guidelines, behavioral rules, task state management, and multiple examples. With an output schema present, it appropriately focuses on usage rather than return values, making it complete 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (session_id, todos array with TodoItem structure). It implies usage context but doesn't explain parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema's 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 tool's purpose: 'create and manage a structured task list for your current coding session' with specific verbs (create, manage, track, organize). It distinguishes from sibling tools like todo_read by emphasizing writing/updating capabilities rather than just reading.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance with dedicated 'When to Use This Tool' and 'When NOT to Use This Tool' sections, including 7 specific usage scenarios and 4 exclusion criteria. It names alternatives implicitly (e.g., 'just doing the task directly') and includes multiple detailed examples with reasoning.

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

• batchA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing behavioral traits. It explains execution order (parallel when possible, otherwise serial), permission handling (each tool respects its own permissions), output behavior (outputs NOT shown to user, requiring separate message), and provides practical constraints like latency reduction benefits. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error handling 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 front-loaded with core information but becomes verbose with extensive examples, scenario lists, and tool availability sections. While all content is relevant, it could be more tightly structured. The example section is particularly lengthy and includes formatting that might not be necessary in a pure description.

  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 (batch execution with multiple invocations), no annotations, but with a comprehensive input schema and output schema present, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral characteristics, examples, available tools, and important constraints about user visibility of 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it repeats the 'description' parameter guidance and provides an example format for 'invocations', but doesn't significantly enhance understanding of parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive 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: 'Batch execution tool that runs multiple tool invocations in a single request.' It specifies the verb ('runs'), resource ('multiple tool invocations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it's for parallel/serial execution of other tools rather than direct operations.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use this tool when you need to run multiple independent tool operations at once.' It also includes specific examples of common scenarios and explicitly lists which sibling tools are available vs. not available for batch calls, providing clear alternatives and exclusions.

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

• directory_treeA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: output format (indented list with trailing slashes), default exclusions for development directories, and the constraint of working only within allowed directories. It doesn't mention performance implications or error handling, but covers essential operational context.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is efficiently structured with four sentences that each add value: purpose statement, output format details, behavioral constraints, and operational limits. No redundant information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

  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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, output format, behavioral traits, and constraints without needing to explain return values (handled by output schema) or parameter details (handled by 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'customizable depth and filtering' and explaining the effect of 'include_filtered' on development directories, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

  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 resource 'recursive tree view of files and directories', specifying it's a structured view with directories marked by trailing slashes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read' or 'grep' by focusing on hierarchical directory structure rather than file content or pattern matching.

  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: 'Only works within allowed directories' and mentions default exclusions for development directories. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read' for file content or 'grep' for searching within files, leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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

• run_commandA
  4.3/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 and does so comprehensively. It details timeout behavior (default 2 minutes, max 10 minutes), output truncation (30k characters), security measures, command execution constraints (avoid newlines, use ; or &&), and specific workflows for git operations and pull requests. It provides rich context beyond basic 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 excessively long and poorly structured. While the initial sentence is clear, it's followed by extensive, verbose sections on git commits, pull requests, and other operations that belong in separate documentation. The description should be front-loaded with essential usage information, but instead buries key details in lengthy procedural guides. Many sentences don't earn their place in a tool description.

  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 complexity of a command execution tool with no annotations but with output schema, the description provides substantial context about behavior, constraints, and workflows. However, the inclusion of extensive git and GitHub procedures makes it unfocused. For a tool with output schema, the description appropriately doesn't explain return values but does cover execution behavior thoroughly, though with organizational issues.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant semantic information about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'command argument is required' and 'optional timeout' which are already covered. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

  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: 'Executes a given bash command in a shell with optional timeout, ensuring proper handling and security measures.' This specifies the verb ('executes'), resource ('bash command'), and key constraints ('optional timeout', 'security measures'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like directory_tree, grep, read, etc., which are more specialized operations.

  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?

  The description provides extensive, explicit guidance on when and how to use this tool. It includes prerequisites (directory verification before creating files), alternatives (use directory_tree, grep, glob, task instead of find/grep/cat), and specific examples (good command format). It also details when NOT to use certain commands and provides clear alternatives like ripgrep.

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

• editA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool (implied by 'replacements'), has strict validation rules ('exact string replacements', 'strict occurrence count validation'), and includes important constraints like preserving indentation and handling line number prefixes from the Read tool. It doesn't mention error handling or permissions, but covers critical operational 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by usage guidelines. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the usage section could be slightly more concise. Every sentence adds value, such as the critical warning about line number prefixes.

  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 (file editing with strict validation), no annotations, but a complete input schema and presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral constraints, and integrates with sibling tools (Read), making it fully adequate for an agent to understand and 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema, mainly contextual guidance about how 'old_string' should be extracted from Read tool output. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

  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 with specific verbs ('performs exact string replacements') and resources ('in files'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'write' (which creates new files) and 'multi_edit' (which handles multiple edits). It specifies the exact nature of the operation with 'strict occurrence count validation'.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidance: it tells when to use it ('When editing text from Read tool output'), when not to use it ('NEVER write new files unless explicitly required'), and distinguishes it from alternatives by stating to 'ALWAYS prefer editing existing files' and referencing the 'Read' tool for obtaining content.

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

• grep_astA
  4.4/5.0
  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 effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a search/read operation (implied by 'search through' and 'see matching lines'), provides AST-based structural context, and includes an example usage. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance with large files, supported languages, or error handling, leaving some 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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, differentiation from siblings, usage guidelines, and an example. It's appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise by integrating the example more seamlessly. Most sentences earn their place, though the 'When to use' list is detailed yet necessary.

  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 (AST-based search), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and includes an example, providing sufficient information for an agent to understand and invoke 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning parameters in the example usage without explaining their semantics further. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

  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 through source code files with AST context, specifying it shows matching lines within functions, classes, and code blocks. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like `search_content` (implied by 'traditional search tools') and `grep` by emphasizing structural understanding over text matching.

  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?

  The description includes a dedicated 'When to use this tool' section with five specific scenarios (e.g., understanding pattern context, finding definitions, exploring codebases). It explicitly contrasts with alternatives like `search_content` and regular grep, stating it's superior for structural context, providing clear guidance on when to use versus when not to.

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

• readA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: can read any file on the machine, assumes paths are valid, returns errors for non-existent files, truncates lines longer than 2000 characters, returns results in cat -n format with line numbers starting at 1, and has a default limit of 2000 lines. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions 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 purpose statement followed by usage guidelines in bullet points. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'Assume this tool is able to read all files on the machine' could be simplified). Overall efficient with minimal waste.

  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 (file reading with offset/limit capabilities), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter guidance, and sibling tool relationships. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about when to use offset/limit ('especially handy for long files') and recommends not providing them to read the whole file, but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides. 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 tool's purpose as 'Reads a file from the local filesystem' with the specific verb 'reads' and resource 'file'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'notebook_read' for Jupyter notebooks and 'batch' for multiple files, providing clear differentiation.

  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?

  The description provides explicit usage guidelines: use 'notebook_read' for .ipynb files, use 'batch' for reading multiple files, and recommends not providing offset/limit unless the file is too large. It clearly states when to use alternatives and when to avoid certain parameters.

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

• writeA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool overwrites existing files, requires reading existing files first to avoid failure, and has specific constraints about creating new files and documentation. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error handling details that could be relevant for a filesystem 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The usage guidelines are organized as bullet points for clarity. While every sentence earns its place, the formatting with bullet points and multiple 'NEVER' statements could be slightly more concise while maintaining clarity.

  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 this is a filesystem write tool with no annotations but 100% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is complete enough. It covers the core purpose, critical behavioral constraints, and usage guidelines. The output schema would handle return values, so the description appropriately focuses on when and how to use the tool rather than output 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?

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It implies file_path must be absolute through usage context but doesn't explicitly state this beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

  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 specific action ('writes a file') and resource ('to the local filesystem'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read', 'edit', and 'content_replace' which have different purposes. The verb+resource combination is precise 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 Guidelines5/5

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

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'ALWAYS prefer editing existing files in the codebase. NEVER write new files unless explicitly required.' It also specifies when NOT to use it ('NEVER proactively create documentation files') and references the 'Read' tool as a prerequisite for existing files, offering clear alternatives and exclusions.

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

• grepA
  4.5/5.0
  Behavior4/5

  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 effectively describes key traits: it's a search tool (implies read-only, non-destructive), supports regex syntax, filters files by pattern, and returns sorted results by modification time. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like performance impacts on large files or error handling, leaving some 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: it explains functionality, provides examples, describes output sorting, and gives usage guidelines. There is no wasted text, making it efficient and easy to parse.

  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 moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and parameter context without needing to explain return values, which are handled by the output schema. No significant gaps remain 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.

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning regex examples and include patterns, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline of 3 for high 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?

  The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Fast content search tool that works with any codebase size' and 'Searches file contents using regular expressions,' specifying both the verb (search) and resource (file contents). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'grep_ast' (likely AST-based search) and 'Agent' (for open-ended searches), providing clear differentiation.

  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?

  The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this tool when you need to find files containing specific patterns') and when not to ('When you are doing an open ended search that may require multiple rounds of globbing and grepping, use the Agent tool instead'). It provides clear alternatives and exclusions, helping the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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

• multi_editA
  4.8/5.0
  Behavior5/5

  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 and does so comprehensively. It explains critical behavioral traits: atomicity ('either all succeed or none are applied'), sequential application ('edits are applied in sequence'), failure conditions (multiple failure scenarios detailed), and specific constraints for Jupyter notebooks. This goes well beyond what a basic description would provide.

  Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions 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 clear sections (purpose, prerequisites, parameters, important notes, warnings, usage tips) and front-loads key information. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise; for example, the 'When making edits' section contains general advice that could be streamlined. Overall, most sentences earn their place by providing essential guidance.

  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 (multi-edit file operations), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides exceptional completeness. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, parameter context, failure conditions, sibling tool relationships, and even edge cases like file creation. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, and the description addresses all other aspects thoroughly.

  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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the purpose of the edits array ('perform multiple find-and-replace operations efficiently'), provides practical guidance on using empty old_string for file creation, and clarifies the sequential nature of edits. However, it doesn't add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents 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 the tool's purpose: 'making multiple edits to a single file in one operation' and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly comparing it to the Edit tool and NotebookEdit. It specifies the verb ('make multiple edits'), resource ('single file'), and scope ('in one operation'), providing clear differentiation.

  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?

  The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Prefer this tool over the Edit tool when you need to make multiple edits to the same file') and when not to use it ('For Jupyter notebooks (.ipynb files), use the NotebookEdit instead'). It also includes prerequisites ('Use the Read tool to understand the file's contents and context') and clear alternatives, making usage context unambiguous.

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