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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates that this tool creates a new document and returns its id, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or failure modes, but the 'new' wording rules out overwriting, and the return of an id is explicitly disclosed.

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

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

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, and immediately states the return value. There is no unnecessary text or repetition, making it highly concise and scannable.

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

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

The tool is a simple create operation with three fully documented parameters and no nested objects. The description mentions the return value (the id) and the schema covers all inputs. The only slight gap is that the description does not explicitly mention the 'mode' parameter or its default, but that information is present in the schema, so the overall context is sufficiently complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to, since every parameter (markdown, title, mode) is fully documented in the schema.

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

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as a 'new mdgen document', clearly distinguishing it from the list/read/update/delete siblings. It also explicitly states the return value (the created document id), which removes any ambiguity about the operation's primary effect.

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

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

The description tells what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. However, the sibling tool names (list_documents, read_document, update_document, delete_document) make the appropriate use case strongly implied, so the lack of explicit 'when not to use' is a minor gap.

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

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 the basic action and gives no indication of permanence, irreversibility, permissions required, error behavior, or whether the deletion is soft or hard. This leaves significant ambiguity 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.

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the required parameter with zero waste. Every word serves a purpose.

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

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

This is a simple delete tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core operation but omits important context like what happens on success or failure, whether the delete is permanent, and any side effects. Given the low complexity, it is minimally viable but not richly complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single param 'id' is documented as 'Document id'), so the schema already fully explains the parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which aligns with 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a document') with the key parameter ('by id'). This precisely differentiates it from the sibling tools like list_documents, read_document, create_document, and update_document.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and general context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies the data scope ('current user's saved') and explicitly lists the output fields, making the operation's behavior transparent. However, it does not mention potential pagination, ordering, or rate limits, though these may be negligible 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.

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It includes essential details (return fields) without any filler or redundant information, earning its place fully.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It states the resource scope and the exact return fields, providing all necessary information for an agent to decide and invoke the tool correctly. No significant gaps exist.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter details because there are none; per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('the current user's saved mdgen documents'), and the returned fields (id, title, mode, updatedAt). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_document (which presumably fetches a single document's full content) and mutation tools.

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

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

The description provides clear context: it is for listing the current user's saved documents and shows metadata fields only. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope and returned fields imply when to use it compared to read_document or the mutation tools.

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

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 does reveal what the tool returns (full Markdown and metadata), but it does not mention error behavior, permissions, or side effects. Since this is a read-only operation, the lack of mutation details is acceptable, but other aspects like not-found handling are undisclosed.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the core function without extra words. It is concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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

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

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers what the tool does (returns full Markdown and metadata). It lacks explicit mention of errors or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and absence of an output schema, it is reasonably complete. A slight deduction for not noting behavior on missing documents.

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

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

The schema already documents the only parameter 'id' with a description, and the tool description adds no further meaning beyond 'by id'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; there is no additional semantic value from the description.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('a document by id'), specifying that it returns 'full Markdown and metadata'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_documents (which lists all) and create/update/delete (which modify).

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving a single document by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over list_documents or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear enough to infer, but explicit guidance is absent.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds partial update behavior ('Only the provided fields change; others are preserved'), but does not disclose return values, permissions, error conditions, or side effects, which are important 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.

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

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a concise behavioral note. No redundant information.

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

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

Parameter schema is complete and partial update behavior is explained, but with no output schema or annotations, the description omits return value and error handling details, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that only provided fields change, giving each optional parameter a partial-update context that the schema alone does not convey.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Update a document by id', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools (list/read/create/delete) by focusing on modification of an existing document.

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

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

The description implies usage for updating an existing document but does not explicitly mention when to use it vs alternatives like create_document or read_document. No exclusions are given.

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