Miyabi MCP Bundle
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation2/5
The tool set has significant overlap and ambiguity, particularly within categories like file operations (e.g., file_changes_since, file_recent_changes, file_search), logging (multiple log_* tools with similar purposes), and process monitoring (process_list, process_top, resource_processes). While descriptions clarify some differences, the sheer number of tools with similar names and functions makes it difficult for an agent to reliably choose the correct one without deep inspection.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun or noun_verb structures (e.g., bridge_context_get, calc_expression, docker_build). There are no deviations in naming style across all 194 tools, making them predictable and easy to parse programmatically.
Tool Count1/5With 194 tools, this server is extremely bloated for any single purpose. It attempts to cover an excessive range of domains (e.g., Docker, Git, GitHub, system monitoring, databases, networking, time, thinking, societies), far beyond what a well-scoped MCP server should handle. Such a large count will overwhelm agents and lead to confusion and inefficiency.
Completeness4/5Within each covered domain, the tool set appears remarkably complete, offering comprehensive CRUD and lifecycle operations (e.g., full Git and GitHub workflows, Docker container management, system resource monitoring). However, the broad scope makes it impossible to assess true completeness for a unified purpose, as the server lacks a clear, focused domain. Minor gaps might exist in niche areas, but overall coverage within subdomains is thorough.
Average 3.1/5 across 194 of 194 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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.
This server has been verified by its author.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how data is retrieved, or any side effects. The description is too minimal to 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it avoids unnecessary words, it does not provide enough detail to be truly helpful, striking a balance between brevity and insufficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose, usage, parameters, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description offers no information about the three parameters (id, key, society), and schema description coverage is 0%. Without any parameter details in the description, the agent lacks understanding of what each parameter means or how they interact, failing 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.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get stored context' restates the tool name 'context_get' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'stored context' but lacks detail on what 'context' entails or how it differs from siblings like 'context_list' or 'context_search', 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 Guidelines1/5Does the description explain 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 'context_list' or 'context_search'. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues, offering no help for the agent in 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.
- 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Search contexts' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's destructive, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by 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.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the first two words), it fails to convey necessary information, making this conciseness detrimental rather than helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, offers no behavioral context, and gives no differentiation from related tools. This leaves 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.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 required parameters ('society' and 'query') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description 'Search contexts' provides no information about what these parameters mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the search. This leaves both parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search contexts' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'context_search' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't specify what 'contexts' are, what resource is being searched, or what the search returns. While it includes a verb ('Search'), it lacks the necessary detail to distinguish this from sibling tools like 'context_list' or 'context_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 multiple sibling tools related to contexts (e.g., 'context_list', 'context_get', 'context_store'), but the description doesn't indicate when 'context_search' is appropriate compared to these other tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. 'Share context access' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what the response looks like, or any side effects. For a tool that appears to modify access permissions (based on the name and parameters), this lack of behavioral information is particularly problematic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which could be efficient if it were informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it's front-loaded (there's only one phrase), it doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient information to guide tool selection or usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a tool with 3 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does beyond the name, no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no output expectations. This leaves 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.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (id, society, share_with) have any documentation in the schema. The description 'Share context access' provides zero information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to the sharing operation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Share context access' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'context_share' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'context' refers to, what 'sharing' entails, or what resource is being acted upon. While it includes a verb ('share'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'bridge_context_share' or other sharing-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 Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or distinctions from similar tools like 'bridge_context_share' or 'context_store'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific sharing operation is needed versus other context manipulation 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 of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information on whether this tool is read-only or mutating, what permissions or rate limits apply, what output format to expect, or any side effects. The phrase 'with statistics' hints at computation but lacks specifics, failing to compensate for the absence of structured annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise—a single phrase—but this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficiency. While it is front-loaded, it lacks the necessary detail to be helpful, making it more of a placeholder than a well-structured explanation. It earns a middle score for being short but loses points for failing to convey meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (implied by aggregation and statistics), the absence of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address key aspects like data sources, aggregation methods, output format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('period') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description does not mention this parameter at all, offering no compensation for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent with no understanding of what 'period' represents or how to use it effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Aggregate metrics with statistics' is vague and tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'metrics_aggregate' without specifying what metrics are aggregated, from what source, or what statistics are computed. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like 'metrics_collect', 'metrics_query', or 'metrics_dashboard', leaving the purpose unclear beyond a generic aggregation concept.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'metrics_collect' for data collection or 'metrics_query' for querying), making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage scenarios 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 annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or any side effects like data modification. The vague term 'share' implies a mutation but lacks critical details 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it lacks necessary detail for clarity and completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide essential context about the tool's behavior, parameters, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 required parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'owner_society', 'share_with', 'context_type', or 'data' represent, their formats, or constraints, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Share context with Societies' restates the tool name 'bridge_context_share' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action (share) and target (Societies) but lacks detail about what 'context' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like 'context_share' or 'bridge_context_get', 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 Guidelines1/5Does the description explain 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 'context_share', 'bridge_context_get', and 'bridge_send', the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Store context data' reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation (though 'store' implies mutation), what permissions are required, whether storage is persistent or temporary, what happens on conflicts, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it lacks the necessary detail to be truly helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description 'Store context data' provides minimal context about what the tool does and nothing about how to use it, what it returns, or its behavioral characteristics. For a tool of this complexity with no structured documentation support, the description is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (3 required), the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't mention 'key', 'society', 'data', or 'ttl', nor does it explain what these parameters mean, their relationships, or their expected formats. The description fails completely to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Store context data' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'context_store'. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity about what 'context data' means or what storage mechanism is used. Compared to sibling tools like 'context_get', 'context_list', and 'context_search', it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific role within the context management family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling context tools available (context_get, context_list, context_search, context_share, context_expire), the agent receives no indication about when this storage operation is appropriate versus retrieval, listing, or sharing operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Collect system metrics' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what the output format is, or any rate limits. The description is completely inadequate 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this could be considered under-specified rather than appropriately concise, it does efficiently state the core action without wasted words. The structure is simple and front-loaded with the main verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameter, behavioral characteristics, or differentiation from alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description 'Collect system metrics' provides no information about the 'society' parameter - what it represents, what values it accepts, or how it affects the collection. With low schema coverage and no parameter information in the description, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Collect system metrics' states a vague purpose with a generic verb and resource. It doesn't specify what metrics are collected, from which systems, or in what format. While it distinguishes from non-metrics siblings, it doesn't differentiate from other metrics tools like metrics_aggregate, metrics_dashboard, metrics_export, metrics_query, or society_metrics_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 multiple other metrics-related tools (metrics_aggregate, metrics_dashboard, metrics_export, metrics_query, society_metrics_summary) with overlapping domains, but the description offers no comparison, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description 'Get shared context' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally: what 'shared context' is, how it's retrieved, what permissions are needed, whether it's read-only or has side effects, what the return format looks like, or any error conditions. It's completely inadequate for a tool with parameters and no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, it's front-loaded and contains zero wasted words. Every word ('Get', 'shared', 'context') contributes to the minimal meaning provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is completely inadequate given the context. With 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools that appear related (especially 'context_get' and 'bridge_context_share'), the description fails to provide the necessary context for an agent to understand what this tool does, when to use it, or how its parameters work. It's missing critical information for a tool with parameters and no structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the two parameters (context_id and society). With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, both parameters are completely undocumented. The description doesn't explain what 'society' means (required parameter) or what 'context_id' refers to, nor their relationship or expected formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get shared context' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'bridge_context_get'. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get') and a resource type ('shared context'), it lacks specificity about what 'shared context' means or what distinguishes this tool from similar tools like 'context_get' or 'bridge_context_share'. The purpose is vague and doesn't 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 Guidelines1/5Does 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 multiple related tools (e.g., 'bridge_context_share', 'context_get', 'context_list', 'context_search') with no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. No context, 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.
- 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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Get queue status' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify what information is returned, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, or what format the status information takes. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the minimal action statement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, the description is front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words on unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given 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 undocumented parameter and no output schema. It doesn't explain what 'queue status' means, what system it refers to, what information is returned, or how to interpret the 'society' parameter. Given the lack of annotations and schema documentation, the description should provide much more context about this tool's purpose and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter ('society') with 0% description coverage in the schema. The tool description provides no information about this parameter - what 'society' refers to, what values are acceptable, or why it's needed. For a tool with undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate by explaining parameter meaning or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get queue status' states a basic action but lacks specificity about what queue or system it refers to. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'bridge_receive' or 'bridge_send' that might also relate to queue operations. The description is a near-tautology with the tool name 'bridge_queue_status' - essentially just restating the name without adding meaningful context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for invocation. With multiple bridge-related tools in the sibling list (bridge_context_get, bridge_context_share, bridge_history, bridge_receive, bridge_send), there's no indication of how this tool relates to or differs from those 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Manage context expiration' gives no indication of whether this is a read, write, or destructive operation. It doesn't mention permissions required, side effects, rate limits, or what happens when expiration is set. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, there's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word carries meaning, even if that meaning is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides minimal information that doesn't help an agent understand what the tool does, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. For a tool that appears to modify context expiration (implied by 'manage'), this level of documentation is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters (id, society, new_ttl) with 0% schema description coverage, meaning none have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters - it doesn't explain what 'society' means (though it's required), what 'id' refers to, what 'new_ttl' represents, or the units for TTL. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage context expiration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'context_expire'. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., set, extend, or remove expiration) or what resource is affected. While it mentions 'context', it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like context_get, context_list, or context_store.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions for use, or relationships to sibling tools. Given the many context-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., context_get, context_share, context_store), this lack of differentiation is particularly problematic.
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 for behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format results are returned in, or any rate limits. It provides no behavioral context beyond the basic verb 'query'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though this 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.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the metrics domain, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, when to choose it over alternatives, or any behavioral characteristics needed for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (metric_type, society, limit) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters or provide any semantic context about what they mean, what values they accept, or how they affect the query. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query metrics with filters' restates the tool name 'metrics_query' in a tautological way. It mentions 'metrics' as the resource and 'query' as the verb, but lacks specificity about what kind of metrics (e.g., system, application, business) or what the query returns. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'metrics_aggregate', 'metrics_collect', or 'society_metrics_summary'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. With sibling tools like 'metrics_aggregate' and 'metrics_collect', there's no indication of how this tool differs in 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Receive pending messages' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is a blocking or non-blocking call, what happens to messages after receipt (e.g., are they dequeued?), or any side effects like acknowledgment. The description lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and efficient. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given 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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or any operational constraints. Given the complexity implied by multiple parameters and the lack of structured documentation, this description fails to provide the necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the three parameters (society, limit, acknowledge). With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only indicates data types without explaining what these parameters mean or how they affect the operation. The description doesn't compensate for this gap at all, leaving parameters completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Receive pending messages' states a basic action but lacks specificity about what 'pending messages' are or what resource is involved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like bridge_send, bridge_history, or bridge_queue_status, which all seem related to message handling. The description is vague about the exact purpose and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does 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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or comparisons to sibling tools like bridge_history (for past messages) or bridge_queue_status (for queue monitoring). There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate or when other tools 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.
- 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 but offers minimal information. 'Dashboard data generation' doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what format the output takes, or any side effects. The description fails to provide meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic operation name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of meaningful information. While it's not verbose or repetitive, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single phrase doesn't provide enough context to be truly helpful, though it doesn't waste words on irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context about what the tool actually does. 'Dashboard data generation' is insufficient for understanding the tool's purpose, behavior, or output. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata, leaving significant gaps in understanding this tool's function.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information, this is acceptable given the parameterless nature of the tool, warranting a baseline score above minimum viable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Dashboard data generation' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'metrics_dashboard'. It doesn't specify what kind of data is generated, for what type of dashboard, or what the actual operation involves. While it mentions 'data generation', it lacks a specific verb-resource combination that would clarify 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 Guidelines1/5Does 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 several sibling tools related to metrics (metrics_aggregate, metrics_collect, metrics_export, metrics_query), but the description doesn't explain how this tool differs from those or in what context it should be selected. No usage context, 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 carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Export' implies a read operation that generates output files, but it doesn't specify whether this requires permissions, what happens to existing data, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably too terse for a tool that likely has important behavioral characteristics that need explanation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a metrics export tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what metrics are exported, from what source, in what structure, with what permissions, or how the output is delivered. Given the complexity implied by sibling metrics tools, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but there's only one parameter with an enum (format: json/csv). The description mentions 'JSON/CSV' which aligns with the enum values, adding some semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain what the format parameter controls, default behavior, or other contextual details about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export metrics JSON/CSV' restates the tool name 'metrics_export' with added format options, making it tautological. It specifies the action 'export' and resource 'metrics' but lacks specificity about what metrics are exported or from where, and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like metrics_aggregate, metrics_collect, metrics_query, or society_metrics_summary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios compared to related metrics 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. 'Get message history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, data format, or whether it retrieves real-time or historical data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single three-word phrase, 'Get message history,' which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and clarity within its minimal structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral traits, output format, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for an AI agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the two parameters ('society' and 'limit'), and schema description coverage is 0%, meaning both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't compensate by explaining what 'society' refers to (e.g., a group, context, or identifier) or how 'limit' affects the output, leaving parameter meaning unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get message history' clearly states the action (get) and resource (message history), providing basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'message history' refers to (e.g., chat messages, system messages) and doesn't distinguish it from potential sibling tools like 'bridge_receive' or 'bridge_send', which might handle similar messaging functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference any of the many sibling tools that might overlap in functionality (e.g., 'bridge_context_get', 'bridge_receive', or general history/log tools like 'git_log' or 'log_search').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 'Send message' which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify whether this is synchronous/asynchronous, whether messages are guaranteed delivery, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a messaging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 4 words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste words. While it may be too brief for adequate documentation, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes to the core meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter messaging tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what Societies are, what format the payload should be, how priority works, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. The minimal description fails to provide the context needed for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about what 'from_society', 'to_society', 'payload', or 'priority' mean, their expected formats, or valid values. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Send' and resource 'message between Societies', which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't specify what type of message, what 'Societies' represent in this context, or how this differs from sibling tools like bridge_receive or bridge_context_share. 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. With sibling tools like bridge_receive, bridge_context_share, and bridge_history, the description doesn't explain whether this is for real-time messaging, queued communication, or something else. There's no mention of prerequisites, error 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't clarify permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what 'accessible' means (e.g., user-specific vs. shared). For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, return format, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond a vague understanding of its purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions no parameters, while the input schema has two parameters ('society' required, 'include_shared' optional) with 0% schema description coverage. This means both parameters are entirely undocumented in the schema, and the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters do or how they affect the listing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List accessible contexts' clearly states the action (list) and resource (contexts), which is adequate for understanding the basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'contexts' are in this system or differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'context_get', 'context_search', or 'context_store', leaving room for ambiguity about 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. With multiple sibling tools related to contexts (e.g., 'context_get', 'context_search', 'context_share'), there's no indication of whether this is for browsing, filtering, or retrieving all contexts, nor any 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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Read or update' implies both read and write capabilities, the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether updates are destructive, what happens to existing constitution content, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with mutation capability and no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's scope and front-loads the essential information. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with both read and write capabilities, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools in the same domain, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the relationship to other speckit tools, doesn't clarify the mutation behavior, and provides minimal context about what a 'project constitution' actually is or contains.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (path and content). The description adds minimal value by noting that omitting 'content' triggers a read operation, which is useful context not in the schema. However, this is the only parameter guidance provided, so it meets but doesn't exceed the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool can 'Read or update project constitution defining principles and constraints,' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'speckit_analyze' or 'speckit_specify' - it's unclear how this constitution tool relates to other speckit tools. The purpose is clear but lacks 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling tools available (including other speckit tools like speckit_analyze, speckit_specify, speckit_plan), there's no indication of when this constitution tool is appropriate versus those other tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'calculate' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether it handles empty arrays, large datasets, error conditions, or what format the results are returned in. It mentions metrics but doesn't explain what 'etc.' includes or behavioral constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just one sentence with 8 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'etc.' at the end is vague and doesn't earn its place, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a statistical calculation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (format, structure), doesn't address edge cases (empty data, invalid metrics), and doesn't provide behavioral context. The 'etc.' is particularly problematic as it leaves the tool's capabilities ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'metrics' generically but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema already provides about the data array and metrics enum. The baseline score 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate statistics: mean, median, stddev, variance, min, max, etc.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('statistics') with examples of specific metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calc_expression' or 'calc_unit_convert', which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple calculation-related sibling tools (calc_expression, calc_unit_convert), but the description offers no comparison or context about when this statistical calculation tool is appropriate versus those other calculation 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. While 'Search' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format results are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or how results are structured. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format results are returned in, whether there are limitations on search scope or time range, or how to interpret search results. The description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single 'query' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'specific patterns' which aligns with the query parameter, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Claude logs'), and specifies the type of patterns ('errors or events'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'claude_logs' or 'log_search', which appear to offer similar logging functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With sibling tools like 'claude_logs', 'log_search', 'linux_journal_search', and 'windows_eventlog_search' available, there's no indication of when this specific Claude log search tool is appropriate versus other logging 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 filtering capability but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is read-only or has side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, output format, pagination, or error conditions. For a log retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that directly address purpose and basic filtering. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward log retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'combined logs' means (interleaved? separate streams?), doesn't mention default behavior when parameters are omitted, and provides no information about return format or error handling. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 adds marginal value by implying 'services' parameter usage for filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('combined logs from Compose services'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'docker_logs' by specifying 'Compose services' context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'compose_ps' or 'compose_up/down' in terms of log-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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Filter by service name' but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'docker_logs' for non-Compose containers, 'log_tail' for general log tailing, or 'claude_logs' for Claude-specific logs. No prerequisites or exclusions are 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't explicitly state whether this requires specific permissions, whether it affects system state, or what happens if Docker Compose isn't running. The description mentions what information is displayed but doesn't cover format, pagination, error conditions, or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'what information' for even clearer scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (structured data? plain text?), doesn't mention error handling, and doesn't provide usage guidance relative to similar tools. The description is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (path and all). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain default behavior when parameters are omitted, provide examples of valid paths, or clarify the relationship between the two parameters. The baseline of 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Compose service status') with specific attributes (running, ports, health). It distinguishes from sibling tools like compose_up/compose_down/compose_logs by focusing on status listing rather than control operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_ps which might serve a similar purpose for Docker containers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention when this tool is preferred over docker_ps or other monitoring tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring Docker Compose to be installed or running. There's no context about typical use cases 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Supports SQLite (file), PostgreSQL, and MySQL,' which adds useful context about supported database types. However, it lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only test or if it modifies anything, what the output looks like (success/failure indicators), error handling, or any authentication/rate limit implications. For a connection tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential context about supported databases. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a database connection tool with 7 parameters) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful test, what output to expect, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., which are required for each database type). For a tool with no structured safety or output information, the description should provide more behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'connection' is for 'file path (SQLite)' and lists supported database types, but these are largely redundant with the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Test database connection' with a specific verb ('Test') and resource ('database connection'). It distinguishes itself from sibling database tools like db_query, db_schema, and db_tables by focusing on connection testing rather than querying or metadata retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from db_health, which might also involve connection checking.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., when connection testing is needed), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like db_health or other database tools. The agent must infer usage 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.
- 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 states the tool retrieves an execution plan for analysis, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, output format, or potential side effects (e.g., whether the query is executed or just analyzed). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get query execution plan') and adds context ('for optimization analysis') without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address how to handle database connections (e.g., using connection string vs. host/port parameters), what the output looks like, or error conditions. For a tool with multiple connection options and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the query is for analysis rather than execution. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('query execution plan'), and it adds context about the goal ('for optimization analysis'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like db_query or db_schema, which are related but serve different purposes (executing queries vs. analyzing execution plans).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a database connection), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like db_query (for running queries) or db_health (for database status). Usage is implied only through the purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 states the tool checks health metrics but doesn't describe what the check entails (e.g., whether it performs active queries, returns cached data, or has side effects), potential errors (e.g., connection failures), or output format (critical since there's no output schema). For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Check database health') and lists key aspects without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by specifying the scope (connection, size, performance stats), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. There's no redundancy or fluff, adhering perfectly to conciseness principles.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, diagnostic nature) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., metrics, status codes), how to interpret results, or any behavioral nuances (e.g., if it requires specific permissions or has performance impacts). For a tool that likely outputs structured health data, this omission hinders the agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'type' with enum values, 'connection' as a connection string). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., if 'connection' overrides 'host', 'port', etc.) or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('database health'), and lists the aspects it covers (connection, size, and performance stats). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_connect, db_query, and db_schema by focusing on health metrics rather than connectivity, queries, or schema inspection. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with health_check, which might be a more general health tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid database credentials), when it's appropriate (e.g., for monitoring or troubleshooting), or how it differs from related tools like db_connect (for establishing connections) or health_check (which might check broader system health). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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 states the tool retrieves schema information but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication (implied by connection parameters), potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned data. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple input parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get table schema') and lists key details without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how the tool behaves (e.g., authentication needs, data format), what errors might occur, or how to interpret results. For a database tool with connection parameters, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all 8 parameters (e.g., 'type' with enum values, 'table', connection details). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool uses these to fetch schema, which aligns with the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('table schema'), listing what information is retrieved (columns, types, keys, constraints). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'db_tables' or 'db_query', but the focus on schema details 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a database connection), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'db_tables' (which might list tables without schema details) or 'db_query' (which executes queries).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 'Supports custom tags and no-cache' which adds some behavioral context, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, whether it modifies existing images, or what happens on failure. For a build tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two brief sentences that get straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently mentions key features.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Docker build operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (image ID? success/failure?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of Docker builds and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 mentions 'custom tags and no-cache' which aligns with the 'tag' and 'noCache' parameters but doesn't add meaningful semantic information beyond what's in 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Build') and resource ('Docker image from Dockerfile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools (like docker_exec or docker_images), but those perform different operations, so sibling differentiation isn't critical here.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 the sibling tools list includes other Docker operations, the description doesn't mention when to choose docker_build over other image-related tools or what prerequisites might be 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions three optional parameters (tail, since, timestamps) but doesn't describe the tool's behavior: whether it streams or returns static logs, what format/log levels are included, if it requires container to be running, or any authentication/permission requirements. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two sentences that get straight to the point. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second enumerates key features. There's zero wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (log format, structure, potential streaming behavior), doesn't mention error conditions or limitations, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of log retrieval operations and the lack of structured metadata, more comprehensive description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions three optional parameters (tail, since, timestamps) which aligns with the input schema's 4 parameters (container + 3 optional). With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming these are supported options, meeting the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('container logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'docker_ps' or 'docker_inspect' by focusing specifically on log retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'k8s_logs' or 'log_tail' which might serve similar functions in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With sibling tools like 'k8s_logs', 'log_tail', and 'compose_logs' available, there's no indication of when Docker container logs specifically require this tool versus other logging tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations 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 states the action ('Start') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects (e.g., container state changes), error conditions (e.g., if container doesn't exist), or output format. This leaves significant 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., what happens on success/failure, permissions), output expectations, and usage context. For a tool that modifies system state, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'container' parameter documented as 'Container name or ID.' The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as examples or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Start') and resource ('a stopped container'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_restart (which restarts a running container) or docker_stop (which stops a container), though the 'stopped' qualifier implies 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by specifying 'a stopped container,' which implies when to use it (for containers that are stopped). However, it doesn't mention alternatives (e.g., docker_restart for running containers), prerequisites (e.g., the container must exist and be stopped), or exclusions (e.g., not for starting new containers from images).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 tracking changes in a time window but fails to specify critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted (e.g., list of files with metadata), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with the file system.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and scope. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose, 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.
Completeness2/5Given 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 insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters that likely returns complex file change data. It doesn't explain what the output includes (e.g., file names, timestamps, change types) or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters (directory, minutes, limit, pattern). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying a time-based search, which is covered by the 'minutes' parameter. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find recently modified files' specifies the verb and resource, and 'Track what changed in a time window' adds context about temporal tracking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'file_changes_since', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 'file_changes_since' or other file-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, leaving the agent 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions markdown support, it doesn't address critical aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or if the comment is editable/deletable. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about behavioral traits (permissions, side effects), error conditions, and what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 adequately. The description adds minimal value by mentioning markdown support for the 'body' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like comment length limits or issue/PR distinction nuances beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to an issue or PR'), with the specific capability of markdown formatting. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'github_create_review' or 'github_submit_review' that might also involve commenting functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, repository context), nor does it differentiate from other GitHub tools in the sibling list that might handle comments differently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 markdown support and multiple labels but doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when creation fails. For a write operation tool, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds two key feature clarifications.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error handling, authentication needs, or how to verify success. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but behavioral context is critically lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 well. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'markdown body' and 'multiple labels', which slightly clarifies the 'body' and 'labels' parameters beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new GitHub issue'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_create_pr' or 'github_update_issue' beyond mentioning GitHub issues specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'github_update_issue' or 'github_create_pr'. It mentions markdown and labels but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a pull request (implying a write operation) but fails to mention critical aspects like required authentication, potential side effects (e.g., triggering CI/CD), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Create a pull request') and includes only essential details (head-to-base flow and default). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, return values, and usage context (e.g., repository scope). Given the complexity of creating a pull request, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all four parameters. The description adds minimal value by reinforcing the 'base' parameter's default ('default: main'), which is already in the schema. It doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or examples, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a pull request') and the target ('from head branch to base'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_merge_pr' or 'github_get_pr', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning the default base branch ('default: main'), but it lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites (e.g., branch existence, permissions), or alternatives (e.g., when to use 'github_create_issue' instead). This leaves the agent without clear 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create a PR review' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: required authentication/permissions, whether reviews are immediately submitted or saved as drafts, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when multiple reviews exist. It mentions the three event types but doesn't explain their implications (e.g., APPROVE might merge the PR).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place: 'Create a PR review' establishes the action, and listing the three event types provides essential context. There's zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (success/failure indicators, review ID, etc.), doesn't cover error conditions or permissions needed, and provides minimal behavioral context. Given the complexity of GitHub review operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 - it mentions the three event enum values (APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, COMMENT) which are already in the schema, but doesn't explain their semantic differences or provide additional context about parameter interactions. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a PR review') and specifies the three possible review types (APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, COMMENT). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like github_add_comment or github_submit_review by focusing specifically on creating reviews rather than general comments or submitting existing reviews. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from github_list_pr_reviews, which is a read operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 github_add_comment (for simple comments) or github_submit_review (for submitting existing reviews). It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions) or contextual factors like whether this should be used during code review workflows versus general discussion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a GitHub API tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a GitHub API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, authentication requirements, error conditions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects when invoking this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('per_page') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, nor does it need to given the high coverage. This meets the baseline expectation 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List branches') and specifies what information is included ('with protection status and last commit info'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_branch_list' or 'git_branch_ahead_behind', which appear to be related but distinct GitHub/git branch tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'git_branch_list' or other GitHub-specific tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 filtering capability but doesn't describe pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured in two short sentences that convey the core purpose and main parameter. There's no wasted language, though 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a GitHub API tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover authentication requirements, rate limiting, pagination, error handling, or output format. Given the complexity of GitHub API interactions and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'Filter by state' which aligns with the single parameter in the schema. With 100% schema description coverage and the parameter having a clear enum, the schema already documents this well. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('milestones') with the purpose of 'tracking release progress'. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_issues' or 'github_list_prs' which list different GitHub resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 filtering by state but doesn't explain when to filter by 'open', 'closed', or 'all', nor does it reference other GitHub listing tools for comparison 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('List reviews on a PR with approval status and comments') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, response format, or error conditions. For a tool interacting with an external API like GitHub, this leaves the AI agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'pull_number' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as valid ranges or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List reviews') and resource ('on a PR'), specifying what information is returned ('with approval status and comments'). However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'github_get_pr' or 'github_submit_review' beyond the 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid pull request number) or compare it to related GitHub tools in the sibling list, such as 'github_get_pr' for PR details or 'github_create_review' for adding reviews.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 states the tool lists releases but doesn't mention whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List releases') and specifies key details without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('per_page'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List releases') and specifies what information is included ('with tags, assets, and release notes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling GitHub tools like 'github_list_issues' or 'github_list_prs' beyond the resource type, which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 GitHub listing tools or general search tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering by status but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination handling (implied by 'per_page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This is inadequate for a tool with potential API constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose and a basic usage hint, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 is incomplete for a tool with three parameters and potential behavioral complexities (e.g., API interactions, pagination). It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error responses, and output structure, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool effectively in a GitHub context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'status' parameter can filter for failures, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already specifies. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recent workflow runs'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling GitHub tools like 'github_list_workflows' or 'github_list_prs', which would require mentioning it's specifically for runs/executions of workflows rather than workflow definitions or other GitHub entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Filter by status to find failures,' which implies a use case but doesn't offer explicit when-to-use instructions, alternatives, or exclusions. No comparison to sibling tools or prerequisites is mentioned, leaving the agent with little 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about pagination (implied by 'per_page' parameter but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (workflow definitions, their states, metadata), how results are structured, or any behavioral aspects like pagination handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data about workflows, more context about the return format and operational behavior would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'per_page' clearly documented in the schema as 'Results per page'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('GitHub Actions workflows defined in the repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_workflow_runs', which might cause confusion about whether this lists workflow definitions versus executions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'github_list_workflow_runs' or other GitHub listing tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., repository access) or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information without 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the merge methods, it fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions (e.g., write access to the repository), side effects (e.g., closing the PR, creating a merge commit), error conditions (e.g., merge conflicts, required status checks), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Merge a PR') and specifies the methods without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a mutation tool like merging a PR, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it lacks information on permissions, side effects, error handling, and return values. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete, especially for an operation that can alter repository state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('pull_number' and 'merge_method'), including an enum for the latter. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three merge methods, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or additional context like what happens if 'merge_method' is omitted. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Merge a PR') and specifies the available methods ('merge, squash, or rebase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'github_submit_review' or 'github_update_issue' that might also interact with pull requests, though those appear to serve different functions based on their names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., PR must be in a mergeable state), or exclusions (e.g., cannot merge if conflicts exist). It merely states what the tool does without contextual usage information, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name and parameters 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 mentions 'submit' and 'final verdict', implying a write operation that affects the PR state, but fails to detail permissions required, side effects, error conditions, or response format. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and outcome, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of submitting a PR review (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, what 'pending' means, or the impact of different 'event' values to adequately guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between 'review_id' and 'pull_number' or clarifying the 'event' enum in context. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Submit a pending PR review') and the outcome ('with final verdict'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_create_review' or 'github_list_pr_reviews', 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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_create_review' for initiating a review or 'github_list_pr_reviews' for viewing existing ones. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but fails to mention critical details like required permissions (e.g., write access to the repository), whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., if only title is provided, does body remain unchanged?). The mention of closing issues adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are inadequately covered 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), response format, error handling, and how it fits among siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description doesn't compensate for the missing context needed for safe and effective use, especially for an update operation in a collaborative environment like GitHub.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (issue_number, title, body, state) with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by listing the updatable fields ('title, body, state, or assignees') and noting the state can be used to close issues, but this mostly reiterates schema info without deeper semantics like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('issue title, body, state, or assignees'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions closing issues as a specific use case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like github_create_issue or github_get_issue, though the 'update' verb inherently suggests modification of existing issues rather than creation or retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool, only hinting at its purpose with 'Close issues by setting state.' It lacks explicit context for when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., github_add_comment for comments, github_create_issue for new issues), prerequisites like authentication, or any 'when-not' scenarios. No sibling tool comparisons are made, leaving usage decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether it's safe to run frequently, what happens if the resource doesn't exist, or any rate limiting considerations. It mentions the type of information returned but doesn't describe the format, depth, or potential side effects 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 8 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed resource info') followed by specific details about what's included. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Kubernetes resource inspection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it mentions what information is returned, it doesn't describe the format, structure, or typical use cases. Given that this is a read operation on potentially sensitive Kubernetes resources, more context about permissions, error conditions, and output expectations would be valuable. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide examples of valid values. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed resource info') with specific details about what information is included ('events, conditions, and spec'). It distinguishes itself from other Kubernetes tools like k8s_get_pods or k8s_get_deployments by offering detailed information rather than just listing resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from k8s_logs or other inspection tools beyond the scope of 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple Kubernetes-related sibling tools (k8s_apply, k8s_delete, k8s_get_deployments, k8s_get_pods, k8s_logs) but the description doesn't indicate when k8s_describe is preferable to k8s_get_pods for pod information or when detailed info is needed versus basic listing. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations 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 behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists deployments with specific statuses but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, handles errors, or returns structured data. This leaves significant gaps for a Kubernetes tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List deployments') and includes key details without waste. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Kubernetes tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, return format, and integration context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the two parameters ('namespace' and 'allNamespaces'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without compensating or adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('deployments') with specific status fields mentioned ('replicas, available, and ready status'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling k8s tools like 'k8s_get_pods' beyond the resource type, so it doesn't fully distinguish operational scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 'k8s_get_pods' or 'k8s_describe', nor does it mention prerequisites such as cluster access or namespace defaults. The description lacks explicit 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, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists pods with specific attributes and filtering options, but does not cover critical behaviors like output format, pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a Kubernetes cluster.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('List pods with status, restarts, and age') and follows with filtering details. There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Kubernetes operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like mutation risks, rate limits, or response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The tool's purpose is clear, but operational context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by 'namespace or label selector', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional semantics, syntax examples, or constraints beyond what is already in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pods') with specific attributes ('status, restarts, and age'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'k8s_get_deployments' or 'process_list', which could also list resources, though the Kubernetes context is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'k8s_describe' for detailed pod information or 'k8s_logs' for pod logs. It mentions filtering capabilities but lacks context on 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get pod logs' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether logs are streamed or returned as a block. For a Kubernetes tool with potential complexity, this leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two short sentences that communicate the core functionality and one important usage note. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a Kubernetes logging tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format logs are returned in, whether they're real-time or historical, how errors are handled, or what permissions are required. The combination of no annotations and no output schema means the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning container specification for multi-container pods, which is already covered in the container parameter's schema description. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('pod logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also adds useful context about multi-container pods. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_logs' or 'compose_logs', which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Specify container for multi-container pods' but offers no broader context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or comparison with similar logging tools in the sibling list, leaving significant gaps in 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. While 'Get warning-level log entries' implies a read operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, how results are formatted (structured vs raw), if there's pagination or limits, what happens when no warnings exist, or if the tool performs any filtering beyond warning level. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds value context about finding potential issues. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the optional time filtering parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the warnings are returned in, whether they include timestamps/sources/severity details, how many results are returned, or what happens when the optional parameter isn't provided. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered for a tool that presumably returns structured log data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'minutes' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain default behavior when minutes isn't specified, typical values, or how the time filtering interacts with the warning-level filtering.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get warning-level log entries' specifies the verb (get) and resource (warning-level log entries). It distinguishes from siblings like log_get_errors (errors) and log_get_recent (recent entries of all levels), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from log_search which could also retrieve warnings. The 'Find potential issues before they become errors' adds useful context about the tool's value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention when to choose log_get_warnings over log_get_errors, log_get_recent, or log_search. The sibling tool list shows multiple log-related tools, but the description offers no comparative context or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'case-insensitive' search and implies pattern matching, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is read-only (likely, but not stated), what format/log sources are supported beyond the 'source' parameter, whether results are paginated/limited, or what the output looks like (no output schema). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences contribute value: the first states the action and key constraint, the second provides usage context. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., log entries, counts, structured data), how results are formatted, whether there are limits/offsets, or how it interacts with sibling log tools. The description alone is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('query', 'source') fully described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it reiterates 'case-insensitive' for the query (already in schema) and implies pattern matching. No additional syntax, format examples, or constraints are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search logs for a pattern (case-insensitive).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('logs'), and key behavior ('case-insensitive'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log_get_errors', 'log_get_recent', 'log_get_warnings', or 'log_tail', which appear to be related log tools on the same server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Find specific events or errors.' This implies usage for searching events/errors but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log_get_errors' (which might retrieve errors without searching) or 'log_tail' (which might stream logs). No explicit when/when-not instructions 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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions searching and filtering capabilities, it doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., tool names, descriptions, categories), whether it's paginated, how results are sorted, or any performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two short sentences that directly state the tool's function. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the filtering capability in the second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of searching across many MCP tools and the lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about matching tools, how results are formatted, or what happens when no tools match. For a search tool in a rich ecosystem with 150+ sibling tools, users need more context about the search behavior and results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'category'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'Search query' and 'Filter by category prefix' which exactly mirrors 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search available MCP tools by name or description. Filter by category prefix.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('MCP tools'), and scope ('by name or description'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'context_search' or 'file_search', which lowers it from 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling search tools (e.g., 'context_search', 'file_search', 'log_search'), there's no indication of when this specific MCP tool search is appropriate versus those other searches. It lacks any '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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does (DNS resolution) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it performs recursive or iterative resolution, timeout behavior, caching implications, error handling, or what happens with invalid hostnames. The 'Debug DNS issues' hint suggests diagnostic use but doesn't specify what debugging information is returned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two clear phrases separated by a period. The first phrase states the core functionality, the second adds context. No wasted words, though the structure could be slightly improved by making the debugging aspect more integrated rather than appended.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter DNS lookup tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return format (structured data vs. raw output), what happens with multiple IPs, IPv4 vs. IPv6 prioritization, or failure modes. The absence of annotations means the description should do more to compensate, but it doesn't fully address these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'hostname' well-described in the schema. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that it resolves 'hostname to IP addresses' but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, domain vs. FQDN expectations, wildcard handling). 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve hostname to IP addresses (IPv4 and IPv6)' - a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('hostname to IP addresses'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying DNS functionality, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like network_ping or network_traceroute. The second part 'Debug DNS issues' adds context but isn't core to the 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. 'Debug DNS issues' implies a troubleshooting context, but there's no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_ping (connectivity testing) or network_ssl_check (certificate validation). No prerequisites, limitations, or 'when-not-to-use' 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking certificate properties but doesn't describe what happens during execution: whether it performs network requests, requires internet access, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a network tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with key information in a single sentence: 'Check SSL/TLS certificate: expiry, issuer, validity.' The second part ('Monitor cert health.') adds some value but could be integrated more tightly. 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (network-based certificate checking), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details, usage context, and output expectations. The schema handles parameters well, but overall completeness is limited.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('host' and 'port'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check SSL/TLS certificate: expiry, issuer, validity. Monitor cert health.' It specifies the action ('check'), the resource ('SSL/TLS certificate'), and the specific aspects examined. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_port_check' or 'network_dns_lookup', 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from other network-related tools in the sibling list. The phrase 'Monitor cert health' hints at ongoing monitoring, but this is vague and not explicit enough for proper usage 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 the full burden. It mentions the tool traces paths and diagnoses issues, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as execution time, output format, potential network impact, or error conditions. For a network diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and purpose. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No wasted verbiage or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a network diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on what the tool returns (e.g., hop-by-hop details, latency measurements), error handling, or any behavioral context needed for effective use. The description doesn't compensate for the missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (host and maxHops). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as host format examples or maxHops implications. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Trace') and resource ('network path to a host'), and it adds diagnostic context ('Diagnose routing and latency issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like network_ping or network_dns_lookup, which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance by mentioning diagnosis of routing and latency issues, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., network_ping for basic connectivity or network_dns_lookup for DNS resolution). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires elevated permissions, what format the output takes, whether it includes real-time tracking or historical data, or how 'Track spawned subprocesses' actually works. For a system monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two clear sentences that directly address the tool's function. Every word earns its place - 'List child processes' establishes the core action, 'of a parent PID' specifies the scope, and 'Track spawned subprocesses' adds important behavioral context. No wasted words or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system process monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned about child processes (PID, name, status, etc.), how the tracking functionality works, whether this is a one-time snapshot or continuous monitoring, or any error conditions. The agent would need to guess critical behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'pid' clearly documented as 'Parent process ID'. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing this is for 'child processes of a parent PID', but doesn't provide additional context about PID format, valid ranges, or how to obtain parent PIDs. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('List', 'Track') and resource ('child processes of a parent PID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'process_list' (general listing) and 'process_tree' (hierarchical view) by focusing on direct children of a specific PID. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'process_search' which might also find child processes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention when to choose this over 'process_tree' (which shows hierarchical relationships) or 'process_list' (which lists all processes). No prerequisites, exclusions, or complementary tools are specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 the Linux-only constraint and diagnostic purpose, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires elevated permissions, what specific I/O metrics are returned, if there are rate limits, whether it's a real-time snapshot or historical data, or what format the output takes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two brief sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the core functionality and platform constraint, the second provides usage context. There's zero wasted language and information is front-loaded appropriately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what specific I/O statistics are returned (read/write rates, I/O wait, etc.), the output format, whether it requires root permissions, or how it differs from related process monitoring tools. The Linux-only constraint is helpful but doesn't compensate for other gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage with the single 'pid' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('disk I/O statistics for a process'), and specifies the operating system constraint ('Linux only'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_cpu_history' or 'process_memory_detail' that also provide process-specific metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance with 'Diagnose I/O bottlenecks' suggesting a diagnostic context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_info' or 'resource_disk', nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the Linux-only note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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's function but lacks details on behavioral traits such as whether it returns real-time or cached data, any permissions required, rate limits, or what happens on no matches (e.g., returns empty list or error). This is a significant gap for a search tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a search operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, error handling, and usage context compared to siblings. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to provide a complete understanding, which it fails to do adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'query' documented as 'Search query (name or command)'. The description adds marginal value by reiterating this ('Search query (name or command line)') but doesn't provide additional semantics like examples, search syntax, or case-sensitivity. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Find', 'Locate') and resources ('processes', 'running services or apps'), and identifies search criteria ('by name or command line'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'process_list' or 'process_search' alternatives that might exist in the broader context, though no direct siblings with similar names are present in the provided list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance on when to use this tool, stating it's for finding processes by name or command line, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. For example, it doesn't compare to 'process_list' (which might list all processes without filtering) or specify scenarios where this search is preferred over other process-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. 'List threads within a process' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this requires elevated permissions, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, whether it works on remote processes, or what happens with invalid PIDs. The second sentence 'Analyze multi-threaded applications' suggests analytical output but provides no specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds analytical context. There's no wasted verbiage, though the second sentence could be more specific about what 'Analyze' entails.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (thread IDs, names, states, CPU usage?), doesn't mention error conditions, and provides no behavioral context beyond the basic operation. Given the complexity of thread analysis and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single 'pid' parameter documented as 'Process ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't clarify PID format, valid ranges, or what happens with non-existent PIDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without extra param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'List threads within a process' (specific verb+resource). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like process_list, process_tree, or process_children, which also deal with processes. The second sentence 'Analyze multi-threaded applications' adds context but doesn't further distinguish the tool's unique scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple process-related sibling tools (process_list, process_tree, process_children, process_search, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific thread-listing tool is appropriate versus those other process tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves disk usage information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it provides real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two short phrases that directly state the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary function stated first. There's zero wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information is returned (total space, used space, percentage, per-filesystem breakdown), whether it requires elevated privileges, or how it differs from similar monitoring tools. The minimal description leaves too many contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 single 'path' parameter. The description mentions 'mounted filesystems' which provides context for the path parameter, but doesn't add specific syntax, format requirements, or examples beyond what the schema provides. 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Monitor') and resource ('disk space usage for mounted filesystems'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like resource_cpu or resource_memory by specifying disk space, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other storage-related tools that might exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 monitoring storage capacity, but doesn't specify prerequisites, limitations, or when other tools like file_size_summary might be more appropriate. Usage context 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 the full burden. It mentions sorting and a default limit, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool that likely interacts with system processes, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two short sentences that directly convey the core functionality and a key detail (default limit). There's no wasted verbiage, and every word earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a system monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and differentiation from siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for reliable agent use in a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters with enums and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'resource hogs' and the default limit, but doesn't provide additional semantic context like usage examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get top processes sorted by CPU or memory usage.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('processes'), and sorting criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_top' or 'process_list', which appear to offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'Find resource hogs' and a default limit, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_top' or 'resource_cpu'. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names 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 but offers minimal information. It doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what format the status information returns, whether there are rate limits, or what authentication might be required. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'status' means, what information is returned, or how to interpret the results. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional 'society' parameter. The description mentions 'filter by Society name' which aligns with the schema, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what's already in the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get status') and resource ('all agents within a Society or all Societies'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'society_health_all' or 'society_health_single', which also appear to provide status/health information about societies.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or compare it to similar tools like 'society_health_all' or 'society_mcp_status' that might provide overlapping functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'detailed health status' includes, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that presumably returns system health information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple health-checking tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a health-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'health status' or what information will be returned, leaving the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and output format. The description should provide more context about what health metrics are available or what 'detailed' means in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'society' clearly documented as 'Society name (e.g., investment, sales, marketing)'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline score 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check detailed health status') and target resource ('of a single Society'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'society_health_all', which appears to check health for all societies rather than a single one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention the sibling 'society_health_all' tool for checking multiple societies, nor does it specify any prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for single-society health checking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 states 'Create' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation (e.g., generating a template) or a write operation (e.g., saving to a file), nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more informative (e.g., by hinting at output or usage context) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a checklist object, a file path, or a status), behavioral traits like side effects, or how it integrates with other speckit tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 ('feature' and 'path') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('pre-implementation checklist for quality assurance'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like speckit_analyze, speckit_plan, or speckit_specify, which likely serve related but distinct functions in the speckit toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 about prerequisites (e.g., whether speckit_init must be run first), typical scenarios (e.g., before deployment), or comparisons to siblings like speckit_plan or speckit_analyze, leaving the agent with 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Generate' implies a creation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this creates persistent artifacts, what format the output takes, whether it's idempotent, or what permissions might be required. For a tool that presumably creates planning artifacts, this is a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and no complex behavioral requirements. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about the planning methodology, output format, or relationship to other speckit_* tools. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful for proper tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 ('feature' and 'path') with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how the feature parameter relates to the planning process or what the path parameter influences. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Generate') and resource ('implementation plan') with specific components ('steps and dependencies for a feature'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like speckit_analyze or speckit_specify by focusing on planning rather than analysis or specification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings in the speckit_* family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple speckit_* tools (speckit_analyze, speckit_checklist, speckit_specify, speckit_tasks) that likely serve related purposes, but no indication is given about when this planning tool is appropriate versus those other 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 states the tool generates a task list, implying a read-only or generative operation, but doesn't specify whether this is a mutation (e.g., saves tasks), requires authentication, has rate limits, or describes the output format. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Generate actionable task list from a feature plan.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero waste, and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generative, likely involves processing a feature plan), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., speckit_plan). With no structured fields to compensate, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('feature' and 'path'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to generating tasks or provide examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate actionable task list from a feature plan.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('actionable task list'), and input source ('feature plan'), which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling tools (e.g., speckit_analyze, speckit_plan, speckit_specify), which might have overlapping or related purposes in the speckit category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage (e.g., after speckit_plan or speckit_specify), or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, including other speckit tools, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a branch but doesn't explain what that entails—whether it's a read-only operation, modifies existing data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with 'create' in its name and no annotations, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's name implies a 'create' operation and there are no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like mutability, return values, or error conditions, which are critical for an agent to use this tool correctly in a 'think' workflow with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (sessionId, branchName, fromStep). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'fromStep' affects branching or the format of 'branchName'. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create alternative thinking branch') and the purpose ('to explore different approaches'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'think_step' or 'think_summarize', which appear related to the same 'think' domain but have different functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'think_step' or 'think_summarize', 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'records' a reasoning step, which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify where or how this recording happens, whether it's persistent, if it requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes the key parameter information without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after recording (e.g., where the step is stored, how it can be retrieved, or what the return value might be). Given the complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 mentions the 'type' parameter with its enum values, but this adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context about how parameters should be used together.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Record a reasoning step with type (observation, hypothesis, analysis, conclusion).' It specifies the verb ('record') and resource ('reasoning step'), and mentions the type parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like think_branch or think_summarize, which appear related to reasoning processes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like think_branch or think_summarize, nor does it specify contexts where recording reasoning steps is appropriate versus other thinking-related operations. The usage 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'summarizes' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are required, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('summarize') and purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by explicitly mentioning inputs or outputs).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (summarizing sessions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('sessionId' and 'includeAlternatives'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'key insights and conclusions' entail or how 'includeAlternatives' affects the summary. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('summarize') and resource ('thinking session'), and it specifies the output ('key insights and conclusions'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'think_branch' or 'think_step', which might also relate to thinking sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing thinking session), exclusions, or how it differs from other tools in the list (like 'think_branch' or 'think_step'), 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for a pattern in pane content and terminal history, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it searches only visible content or full scrollback, if it's case-sensitive, what the output format is (e.g., matches with line numbers), or any performance considerations. This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences: 'Search pane content for a pattern. Find specific output in terminal history.' Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or fluff, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (searching terminal content) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain behavioral details (e.g., search scope, output format), usage context, or error handling. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to compensate, which it fails to do adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'target' described as 'Target pane (optional)' and 'pattern' as 'Search pattern (substring match).' The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'pattern' implicitly but not elaborating on parameter usage or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search pane content for a pattern. Find specific output in terminal history.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('pane content'), and scope ('terminal history'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'tmux_pane_capture' or 'tmux_pane_tail' that might involve pane content differently.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active tmux session), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time monitoring), or related tools (e.g., 'tmux_pane_capture' for full content vs. search). Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Get last N lines' and 'Monitor recent command results', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to understand behavioral traits beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's function and a usage hint. Every word serves a purpose, with no wasted text or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., text format, error messages), behavioral aspects like side effects, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured support, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions ('Target pane' and 'Number of lines to retrieve'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get last N lines from pane output' specifies the verb (get) and resource (pane output), and 'Monitor recent command results' adds context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tmux_pane_capture' or 'log_tail', which might 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Monitor recent command results' implies usage for monitoring, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'tmux_pane_capture' for full capture or 'log_tail' for log files). No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite 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 carries the full burden. It states the tool searches for errors or events but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and platform restriction, with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (searching system logs), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., event details, timestamps), how to interpret results, or any prerequisites (e.g., admin rights). For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema (log, level, source, maxEvents). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying 'errors or specific events' relates to the 'level' parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description provides minimal additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Windows Event Log for errors or specific events (Windows only).' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('Windows Event Log'), and target ('errors or specific events'), with platform restriction noted. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'linux_journal_search' or 'log_search' beyond the Windows-specific mention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'Windows only' and implies usage for searching errors or events, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, alternatives, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify when to use this versus 'log_search' or 'linux_journal_search' (a sibling tool), leaving the agent with little 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 carries full burden. It mentions 'safely' which implies some safety mechanism but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., sandboxing, input validation, error handling). It lists supported functions but doesn't describe behavioral traits like performance characteristics, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides useful examples of supported functions. There is zero wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple calculation tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but has gaps. No output schema exists, so the description doesn't explain what the tool returns (numeric result, error format). No annotations are provided, so behavioral aspects like safety guarantees aren't detailed. The description covers the basic purpose but leaves important contextual questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'Supports sqrt, sin, cos, PI, etc.' which provides examples of functions but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Evaluate math expression safely' specifies the verb (evaluate) and resource (math expression). It distinguishes from sibling tools like calc_statistics and calc_unit_convert by focusing on expression evaluation rather than statistical analysis or unit conversion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from other calculation tools beyond listing supported functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other calculation tools like calc_statistics or calc_unit_convert, nor does it specify any prerequisites or constraints for usage. The agent must infer usage context from the tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'convert' implies a read-only calculation, the description doesn't explicitly state this. It doesn't mention error handling for invalid units, precision of conversions, whether it supports complex unit systems, or what the output format looks like. For a calculation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by examples of supported unit categories.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward unit conversion tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context about what the conversion returns and how errors are handled. The mention of unit categories adds some value, but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured behavioral information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (value, from, to) are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the unit categories (length, weight, temperature) which provides context for the 'from' and 'to' parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert between units' with examples of categories (length, weight, temperature). It uses a specific verb ('convert') and identifies the resource ('units'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'time_convert' tool, which handles time unit conversions specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention the sibling 'time_convert' tool for time-specific conversions, nor does it provide any context about when this general unit converter is appropriate versus more specialized tools. There's no mention of 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.
- 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. While it implies a read-only diagnostic operation, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like what constitutes 'running' status, whether authentication is required, potential rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format might be. The description is minimal and lacks 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two clear, purposeful sentences that directly communicate the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the primary action and follows with additional context, making efficient use of minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a diagnostic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what information the status check returns, what 'running' means operationally, whether it tests connectivity or just checks process status, or how to interpret results. The description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema fully covers the parameter space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Check', 'Verify') and identifies the resource ('MCP server connection status', 'servers'). It distinguishes from most siblings but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'society_mcp_status' which appears to serve a similar purpose for a different scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'society_mcp_status', 'health_check', or other status-checking tools. It states what the tool does but offers no context about 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'live' usage and 'monitor' which implies real-time data, it doesn't specify whether this tool streams data continuously (beyond the noStream parameter), what format the output takes, whether it requires Docker daemon access, or any rate limits. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word earns its place - 'Get live CPU/memory usage for containers' establishes the core functionality, and 'Monitor resource consumption' adds context about the tool's monitoring purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (real-time container monitoring), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format, streaming behavior beyond the noStream parameter, or integration context. For a monitoring tool without structured output documentation, more guidance would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Monitor') and resources ('live CPU/memory usage for containers', 'resource consumption'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like docker_ps (which lists containers) or docker_inspect (which provides detailed container info) by focusing on real-time resource metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from resource_cpu or resource_memory tools that might provide system-wide metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like docker_ps (for container listing), docker_inspect (for detailed container configuration), or system monitoring tools like resource_cpu/resource_memory. There's also no mention of prerequisites or when this tool would be preferred over other monitoring approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 'List files' and 'Track changes,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires permissions, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or if there are rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's function. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place in conveying the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and parameter interactions. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'timestamp' and 'point in time,' which aligns with the 'since' parameter, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the 'directory' or 'pattern' parameters, nor provide context on how they interact. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description adds minimal value over the structured data.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List files modified after a timestamp. Track changes since a point in time.' It uses specific verbs ('List', 'Track') and identifies the resource ('files'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_recent_changes' or 'file_search' that might 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'file_recent_changes' (which might serve a similar purpose) or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over general search tools. The user must infer usage from the 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether it reads files safely, handles large files, returns errors for missing files, provides output format, or has performance characteristics. 'Verify file integrity' hints at comparison but doesn't explain how verification works.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two brief phrases that communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place - 'calculate file hash' states the primary action, the parenthetical lists algorithms, and 'verify file integrity' adds the use case. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does but lacks important context about behavior, output format, and usage scenarios. The agent would need to infer or test how verification works and what the return value looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the hash algorithms available (MD5, SHA256, SHA512) which the enum already shows, and implies the 'path' parameter is for files. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('calculate', 'verify') and resources ('file hash', 'file integrity'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gen_hash' by specifying it's for files, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'file_compare' or 'file_duplicates' which might also involve file integrity checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'gen_hash' (for non-file hashing) or other file integrity tools. It mentions 'verify file integrity' but doesn't explain when that's needed or what scenarios this tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is safe, whether it requires permissions, what the output format looks like, or if there are performance considerations for large directories. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's core functionality. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (directory analysis with subdirectory breakdown), no annotations, no output schema, and a single well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about output format, performance characteristics, and how it differs from similar tools. The description meets basic requirements but leaves significant gaps for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter ('directory'), so the schema already documents what the parameter expects. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify path format requirements, relative vs absolute paths, or special directory names. The baseline score 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('analyze', 'find') and resources ('directory size', 'space usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'file_stats' or 'file_tree' by focusing specifically on size analysis with subdirectory breakdown. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 'file_stats' or 'resource_disk'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools that might provide similar functionality. The usage context is implied but not articulated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 what metadata is retrieved (size, permissions, modified time) but fails to address critical aspects like error handling (e.g., if the file doesn't exist), performance implications, or whether it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with file systems.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two short sentences that directly convey the tool's function without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by specifying the action and the data returned, 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth in behavioral context (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, which are important given the complexity of file system interactions. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter clearly documented as 'File or directory path'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as path format examples or handling of special characters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Check') and resources ('file metadata', 'file properties'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_size_summary' or 'file_read', which might offer overlapping functionality, preventing 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 'file_size_summary' for size-only queries or 'file_read' for content access. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose 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 the default depth of 3, which is useful context, but doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as output format (e.g., text, JSON), error handling, permissions required, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key behavioral detail (default depth). There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a default value but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description doesn't fully compensate for these gaps, making it incomplete for confident tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('directory' and 'depth') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying depth is configurable with a default of 3, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., what 'depth' means in practice or examples of directory paths). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate directory tree structure. Visualize folder hierarchy (default depth: 3).' It specifies the verb ('generate', 'visualize') and resource ('directory tree structure', 'folder hierarchy'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_search' or 'file_stats', which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 a default depth of 3 but doesn't explain when to adjust this or when to choose this tool over other file-related tools like 'file_search' or 'file_stats'. There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the output format options (hex or base64), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether the operation is deterministic, what happens with empty input, performance characteristics, or security considerations for different algorithms. The description provides basic functional information but lacks depth about how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality, available algorithms, and output options. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple utility tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, given that there are no annotations and this is a cryptographic operation, more context about algorithm security, performance trade-offs, or common use cases would be beneficial. The description is minimally complete but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description mentions the algorithm options and output encodings, which aligns with what's in the schema but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's already specified in the structured fields. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Hash a string') and specifies the available algorithms and output encodings. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gen_password' or 'gen_random' by focusing specifically on hashing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools that might exist elsewhere.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with other hashing or encoding tools that might exist in the broader ecosystem. It simply states what the tool does without contextual 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. It mentions 'secure password' and 'configurable character sets,' but lacks details on security standards (e.g., entropy, randomness source), error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential details (configurability, default length) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It doesn't address security implications, return values, or error cases, which are gaps for a tool generating sensitive data. However, the schema is comprehensive, partially compensating for description brevity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying character set configurability and default length, but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema provides (e.g., interactions between parameters). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate secure password with configurable character sets (default: 16 chars).' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('secure password'), and key capability ('configurable character sets'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gen_random or gen_hash, which also generate values but for different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like gen_random (for random data) or gen_hash (for hashing), nor does it specify scenarios where password generation is appropriate versus other generation tools. The default length is noted, but no 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generating random numbers but lacks details on randomness quality (e.g., cryptographically secure), performance, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Generate random integers or floats within a range.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output information. The high schema coverage helps, but without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, especially for a generation tool where output format matters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all four parameters (min, max, count, type) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying range-based generation but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples or constraints beyond what's in the schema. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate random integers or floats within a range.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('random integers or floats'), and scope ('within a range'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gen_hash', 'gen_password', or 'gen_uuid', which all generate different types of values, though the distinction is somewhat implied by the type of output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'gen_hash' or 'gen_uuid', nor does it specify use cases or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for optimal 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions ranking by commit count and identifying active maintainers/authors, but doesn't describe output format (e.g., list structure, fields included), pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether it requires git repository access. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No structural issues or unnecessary elaboration are present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing and ranking contributors), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but misses behavioral details like output format, error handling, and usage context. The high schema coverage for the single parameter helps, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('limit') clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain default behavior if limit is omitted or how ranking ties are handled). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List contributors ranked by commit count. Identify active maintainers and authors.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('contributors'), and ranking criteria ('by commit count'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like git_log or git_file_history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other contributor-related tools (none are listed among siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repository), when it's appropriate (e.g., for project analysis vs. individual file history), or what distinguishes it from similar tools like git_log (which lists commits, not contributors). Without such context, the agent must infer usage 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.
- 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 that labels are created if they don't exist, which is useful context beyond basic 'add' functionality. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is an idempotent operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just two short sentences that communicate the core functionality and an important behavioral nuance. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It covers the 'what' (adds labels, creates if missing) but misses the 'how' (permissions needed, error handling) and 'what next' (response format, success indicators). Given the complexity of GitHub operations, more behavioral transparency would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of issue_number, label naming conventions, or array size limits). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add labels') and target ('to an issue or PR'), with the additional behavior of creating missing labels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'github_list_labels' (which lists) and 'github_update_issue' (which may update other fields). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other GitHub mutation tools like 'github_add_comment' in terms of when to choose one over the other.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention whether to use this for bulk labeling vs. individual updates, or if there are prerequisites like repository permissions. The description only states what it does, not when it's 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. While 'Compare' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description mentions outputs but doesn't describe format or potential errors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two sentences, with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently lists the three output types. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a comparison tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and what it returns, but lacks behavioral context (no annotations) and doesn't explain output format details. The agent knows what to expect but not how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (base/head as branch/commit identifiers). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare two branches or commits' with specific outputs 'Shows diff, files changed, and commits.' This provides a verb+resource+output format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff' or 'file_compare' which might 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with similar tools like 'git_diff' or 'github_get_pr' that might also show differences. The agent must 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond basic functionality.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get full issue details') and lists key components (body, labels, assignees, timeline). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal but adequate for a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, errors) and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, it provides enough to infer functionality but falls short of being fully informative for an AI agent in complex scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('issue_number') clearly documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an issue number is or its format. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('full issue details'), specifying what information is retrieved (body, labels, assignees, timeline). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'github_list_issues' (which lists issues) by focusing on detailed retrieval of a single issue. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'github_update_issue' or 'github_create_issue', leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., needing an issue number), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'github_list_issues' for overviews or 'github_get_pr' for pull requests. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'Get[s] PR details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Get PR details'), followed by specific attributes. Zero waste, appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't explain return values, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'pull_number' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('PR details') with specific attributes ('diff stats, merge status, and review state'). It distinguishes itself from other GitHub tools like 'github_list_prs' (which lists) and 'github_merge_pr' (which merges), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'github_get_issue' which has a similar 'Get' pattern for issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the 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_list_prs' for listing PRs or 'github_get_issue' for issue details. The description implies usage for retrieving details of a specific PR but lacks explicit 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the status includes 'logs and dependencies,' it doesn't specify what format the output takes (e.g., structured JSON, plain text), whether it requires elevated permissions (e.g., sudo), potential side effects (e.g., if it triggers unit reloads), or error conditions (e.g., handling of non-existent units). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed status of a systemd unit') and includes essential qualifiers ('including logs and dependencies' and 'Linux only'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, output format) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context to help an agent use it effectively, but it meets a bare minimum for a simple status-checking tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'unit' documented as 'Unit name (e.g., nginx.service).' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of valid unit types (e.g., .service, .socket) or constraints (e.g., case sensitivity). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get detailed status') and resource ('systemd unit'), with additional scope details ('including logs and dependencies') and platform constraint ('Linux only'). It effectively communicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linux_systemd_units' or 'process_info' which might provide related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. While it mentions 'Linux only' as a platform constraint, it doesn't specify when to choose this over other status-checking tools (e.g., 'linux_systemd_units' for listing units, 'process_info' for process details, or 'docker_inspect' for container status). There's no mention of 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. It states it 'gets' info, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The mention of 'parameters and examples' hints at output content but lacks specifics on format or completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes key details ('parameters and examples') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and output scope but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) and usage guidelines. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it's minimally viable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'tool' documented as 'Tool name'. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to fetch info for a specific tool, but doesn't clarify syntax (e.g., case sensitivity), valid values, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed info about a tool'), specifying it includes 'parameters and examples'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'mcp_search_tools' (which likely searches for tools) and 'mcp_list_categories' (which likely lists categories). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'claude_mcp_status' or 'society_mcp_status', which might provide MCP-related info but not tool details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a tool name), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'mcp_search_tools' for discovery or 'claude_mcp_status' for MCP system info. Usage is implied only by the purpose, with 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists connections and is for debugging, but fails to specify whether this is a real-time snapshot or historical data, what permissions are required, whether it's resource-intensive, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two short phrases that directly convey the core functionality and primary use case. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the main purpose followed by context. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., connection states, process IDs, protocols), whether it's filtered or comprehensive, or any behavioral constraints. For a network diagnostic tool in a rich sibling environment, more contextual information would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A perfect score isn't given because the description could theoretically add optional filtering hints, but it's not required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('List active TCP/UDP connections') and resources ('with remote endpoints'), and includes a secondary use case ('Debug network issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like network_listening_ports or network_stats, which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Debug network issues' suggesting a troubleshooting context, but offers no explicit when-to-use instructions, no exclusions, and no alternatives among the many network-related sibling tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool lists ports and finds conflicts, it doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., port numbers, service names, process IDs), whether it requires elevated privileges, how conflicts are identified, or if there are rate limits. For a system diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the primary function and a key use case. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It states what the tool does and a use case, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions needed, output format, or system impact. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth for confident tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with a well-documented 'protocol' parameter including enum values and default. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('List ports', 'Find port conflicts') and identifies the resource ('your services are listening on'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'network_port_check' by focusing on listening ports rather than checking port availability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'process_ports' which might overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or explicit comparisons with sibling tools like 'network_port_check' or 'process_ports'. The agent must infer usage context solely from the tool name and 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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify what 'trend' means (time window, granularity, format), whether this requires special permissions, if it's resource-intensive, or what the output looks like. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word serves a purpose - the first sentence defines the core functionality, and the second adds context about the monitoring aspect. There's zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read operation with good schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'trend' means, the time range covered, output format, or performance implications. It meets minimum requirements but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of structured behavioral information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with the single 'pid' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no additional parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Monitor') and resource ('CPU usage trend for a process'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'process_info' or 'resource_cpu' by focusing specifically on historical CPU usage trends rather than current state or general information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'process_info', 'resource_cpu', or 'process_top'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, time range considerations, or what makes this tool uniquely suited for monitoring performance trends over time compared to other process-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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Get') and a use case ('Debug configuration issues'), but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure), potential errors (e.g., invalid PID), permissions required, or side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences: 'Get environment variables for a running process. Debug configuration issues.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does and a use case, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'pid' parameter clearly documented as 'Process ID.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as valid PID ranges or examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get environment variables for a running process.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('environment variables'), with a process context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_info' or 'process_list', which could also provide process-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance with 'Debug configuration issues,' which implies a troubleshooting context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_info' or other process-related siblings. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves memory details for debugging, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires special permissions, if it's safe to run frequently, what the output format looks like, or if it has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two short phrases: 'Get detailed memory breakdown: RSS, virtual, shared.' and 'Debug memory issues.' Every word contributes directly to explaining the tool's purpose and use case, with no wasted verbiage or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides basic purpose and use context but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or performance characteristics, which would be important for a debugging tool. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what information is returned, but it only lists memory metrics without specifying structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'pid' parameter clearly documented as 'Process ID'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain valid PID ranges or handling of invalid inputs). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get detailed memory breakdown') and resources ('memory breakdown: RSS, virtual, shared'), and includes a use case ('Debug memory issues'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'process_info' or 'resource_memory' that might also provide memory-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal usage guidance with the phrase 'Debug memory issues', which implies a context for use. However, it doesn't specify when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'process_info' for general process details or 'resource_memory' for system-wide memory), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a valid process 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists ports but doesn't specify whether it returns active/listening ports only, includes TCP/UDP details, requires elevated permissions, or has any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter schema with full coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool with no annotations and potential behavioral complexity (e.g., port listing details), it should provide more context about what information is returned and any limitations to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'pid' parameter clearly documented as 'Process ID'. The description mentions 'process' and 'app' but doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('List', 'Find') and resources ('network ports', 'process', 'app'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_listening_ports' or 'process_info', which might 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a process ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'network_listening_ports' or 'process_info', leaving the agent to guess based on tool names 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 states the tool checks status, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as what 'status' includes (e.g., uptime, errors, connectivity), whether it requires specific permissions, if it has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is too vague to guide the agent effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (simple status check with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' entails, how results are returned, or any prerequisites. For a tool that likely returns structured data about MCP servers, more context is needed to help the agent understand what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's appropriate given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is assigned since the schema fully covers the parameter aspect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Check status') and target resource ('MCP servers used by Societies'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'society_agent_status', 'society_health_all', or 'claude_mcp_status', which appear related to status checking for societies or MCP servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling tools related to status, health, or MCP servers (e.g., society_agent_status, society_health_all, claude_mcp_status, bridge_queue_status, health_check), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'analyze' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't clarify whether this tool makes changes, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the analysis output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and gets straight to the point with zero waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent complexity (analyzing consistency between specs and implementation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide enough context about what 'consistency' means, what format the analysis takes, or what happens during execution. The single parameter is documented in the schema, but behavioral aspects are underspecified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'path' described as 'Project path.' The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('analyze') and target ('project for consistency between specs and implementation'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like speckit_checklist, speckit_constitution, or speckit_status, which appear to be related to the same speckit system but serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple speckit-related tools (speckit_checklist, speckit_constitution, speckit_init, etc.) that likely serve different purposes, but the description doesn't indicate when this analysis tool is appropriate versus those other tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that might overlap (like 'speckit_status'), it lacks sufficient context about differentiation and behavioral expectations, making it only minimally complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 single 'path' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what constitutes a valid project path or default behavior when omitted. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all defined features in the project') with additional context about what's included ('with their status'). It's specific about scope but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'speckit_status' or 'speckit_analyze', which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 like 'speckit_status' or 'speckit_analyze'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal 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 carries full burden. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this modifies existing files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output format looks like. For a tool that creates formal specifications, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal but adequate context for understanding what the tool does at a high level. However, for a tool that creates formal specifications - which could involve complex outputs or side effects - the description should ideally provide more context about what 'formal specification' means in this system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (feature and path). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'feature description' which matches the schema's parameter description exactly. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the output ('a formal specification') from the input ('from a feature description'). It's specific about the transformation being performed. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like speckit_analyze or speckit_plan, which might have overlapping purposes in the speckit family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling tools in the speckit category (speckit_analyze, speckit_checklist, speckit_constitution, etc.), there's no indication of when this specific 'specify' operation is appropriate versus other specification-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 the full burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or if it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying what is retrieved, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, usage, or output format, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations. It's the minimum viable for a simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('Project path'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints on the path format. 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.
Purpose4/5Does 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 'Spec-Kit project status', specifying it includes 'features, specs, and plan coverage'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'speckit_analyze', 'speckit_list_features', or 'speckit_plan', which might have overlapping functionality, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple sibling tools (e.g., speckit_analyze, speckit_list_features, speckit_plan) that could be related, but the description doesn't mention any context, exclusions, or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (conversion) and input formats, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify the output format (e.g., ISO8601, Unix timestamp, or human-readable), error handling for invalid timezones, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first clause and adds essential input format details in the second. There's no wasted language, and every sentence earns its place by providing necessary information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (time conversion with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and input formats but misses output details, error handling, and usage context. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (time, from, to) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating accepted formats ('ISO8601 or unix timestamps') for the 'time' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like timezone format examples (e.g., 'UTC', 'America/New_York') or default behaviors. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert time between timezones.' It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('time'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like time_current, time_diff, and time_format. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from calc_unit_convert, which might also handle time conversions, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like time_current (for current time), time_diff (for time differences), or time_format (for formatting time), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage hint is the accepted input formats, which is parameter-related rather than contextual 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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Format' implies a read-only transformation, the description doesn't clarify important behavioral aspects: whether it validates input formats, handles errors, supports specific datetime formats, or returns structured output. The single example provides minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence with a helpful example. Every word earns its place, and the example ('YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss') immediately clarifies the tool's function. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a formatting tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally provide more context about return values, error conditions, or common use cases. The example helps but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'custom pattern' which aligns with the 'format' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or formatting rules. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Format datetime with custom pattern'. It specifies the verb ('Format') and resource ('datetime'), and provides an example pattern. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'time_convert' or 'time_current', which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. With sibling tools like 'time_convert' and 'time_current' available, there's no indication of when this formatting tool is appropriate versus those other time-related operations. The example is helpful but doesn't constitute 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires tmux to be running, what happens if the session parameter is invalid, whether output is paginated, or what format the results take. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in conveying what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects (permissions, error conditions, output format) and doesn't help the agent understand when to choose this tool over similar tmux siblings. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return format, but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'session' documented as 'Session name (optional)'. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description. The description doesn't explain what happens when session is omitted (lists all panes across all sessions) or provide examples of valid session names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('panes in tmux windows') with additional context about what information is included ('with their dimensions and commands'). It distinguishes from some siblings like tmux_list_sessions and tmux_list_windows by specifying it lists panes rather than sessions or windows. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tmux_pane_search which might also list panes with filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 several tmux-related sibling tools (tmux_list_sessions, tmux_list_windows, tmux_pane_search, tmux_pane_capture, etc.) but the description doesn't indicate when this specific pane-listing tool is preferred over other pane-related tools or when it should be used in conjunction with session/window 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. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether it requires specific tmux permissions, what happens if the session doesn't exist, whether it returns structured data or raw output, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with multiple sibling tmux tools, it should provide more context about when to use it and what exactly it returns. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally explain the return format, which it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'session' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed tmux session info') with specific attributes ('creation time and attached clients'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tmux_list_sessions' or 'tmux_list_windows', which likely provide different types of tmux information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple tmux-related sibling tools (e.g., tmux_list_sessions, tmux_list_windows, tmux_pane_capture), but the description doesn't explain when this detailed info tool is preferred over basic listing tools or other tmux 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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether results are filtered or paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally mention what information is returned (process IDs, commands, statuses, etc.) and any limitations or special considerations for 'background shell processes started by Claude Code' specifically.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles the documentation burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('background shell processes started by Claude Code'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_list' or 'process_search' which might also list processes, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 many process-related tools in the sibling list (process_list, process_search, process_info, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this specific tool for 'background shell processes started by Claude Code' is appropriate versus general process 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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the configuration data is returned in, whether it includes sensitive information, or if there are any rate limits. For a configuration retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read operation, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool retrieves. However, without annotations or an output schema, it doesn't specify what format the configuration data is returned in or what specific settings are included. Given the complexity of configuration data and the lack of structured output documentation, the description could be more complete about what information agents can expect to receive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter requirements. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for parameter semantics in this zero-parameter scenario.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Claude Desktop configuration including MCP servers and settings'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'claude_status' or 'claude_session_info', which might provide related but different information about Claude's state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With many sibling tools that might provide overlapping or related information (e.g., claude_status, claude_session_info, claude_mcp_status), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred 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 carries full burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, if there's pagination, what happens with empty results, or any rate limits. The description provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. The description is front-loaded with the core action and doesn't contain any redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information about what the tool does. However, it lacks context about result format, ordering, filtering capabilities, or error conditions that would be helpful 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the empty input schema is correctly reflected in the tool's purpose statement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Claude Code log files') with specific attributes ('sizes and dates'). It distinguishes from sibling 'claude_logs' by specifying it's about files rather than log content, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'claude_log_search' which might also involve files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the 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 'claude_logs' or 'claude_log_search'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate contexts for usage beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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. While it implies a read-only operation ('Get'), it does not specify whether this requires permissions, how frequently it can be called, what format the output takes, or if it impacts system performance. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get Claude Code session details') and specifies the key data points ('processes, CPU, and memory usage'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on output format, usage context, or behavioral traits, which would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively. It meets the minimum viable threshold without being comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline score of 4 is warranted as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Claude Code session details'), including what information is retrieved ('processes, CPU, and memory usage'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'claude_status' or 'claude_config' by focusing on session-level performance metrics rather than general status or configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 for usage, or comparisons to related tools like 'claude_status', 'process_info', or 'resource_cpu', leaving the agent to infer appropriate use cases independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, how recent 'recent logs' are, if there are rate limits, or what format the output takes. The description is minimal beyond stating what data is retrieved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get complete Claude status') and specifies the components retrieved. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what data is retrieved but lacks details on output format, permissions, or behavioral constraints. Given the complexity of retrieving multiple status components, more context would be helpful 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.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when the description is adequate for the task.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('complete Claude status'), specifying what information is retrieved (config, MCP servers, session, and recent logs). It distinguishes from siblings like 'claude_config' (only config) and 'claude_session_info' (only session), but doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 'claude_config', 'claude_session_info', or 'claude_mcp_status'. The description implies it provides comprehensive status, but doesn't state when this aggregated view is preferable over individual 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 the 'detach' and 'build' options but doesn't describe what 'Start Compose services' actually does (e.g., runs Docker Compose up command, may start containers, requires Docker Compose file). It lacks details on permissions needed, side effects (e.g., container creation), error handling, or output format, leaving significant 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence states the core action, and the second provides key usage tips for parameters, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool (starting services) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, potential side effects, error conditions, or dependencies (e.g., requires Docker Compose installation). For a tool with 4 parameters and significant behavioral implications, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by briefly mentioning 'detach' and 'build' options but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., default behaviors, interactions between parameters). 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start Compose services') with specific Docker Compose context, making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compose_down' or 'compose_ps' beyond the 'start' action, which is why it doesn't achieve 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by mentioning 'detach=true for background' and 'build=true to rebuild', which implies when to use certain parameters. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docker_start' or other Docker-related tools in the sibling list, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'debugging or inspection' which implies read-like operations, but doesn't disclose that this executes arbitrary commands that could be destructive, require specific permissions, or have side effects. For a tool that runs commands in containers with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant behavioral gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that executes commands in containers with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral risks (destructive potential, permission requirements), output format, error conditions, or how it differs from other container inspection tools. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (container, command, user) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as command format examples or user privilege implications, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute command') and target ('inside a running container'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docker_logs or docker_inspect, which also inspect containers but through different mechanisms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance with 'Use for debugging or inspection,' suggesting appropriate contexts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the many Docker-related siblings (e.g., docker_logs for logs, docker_inspect for metadata).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 is 'useful after config changes,' hinting at a use case, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as whether the restart is graceful or forceful, what happens to running processes, or if there are permission requirements. This leaves significant 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the core action, and the second provides contextual utility, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a container restart operation (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, or comparisons to siblings, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('container' and 'timeout'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline score of 3 without adding extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Restart') and resource ('a container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like docker_start or docker_stop, which would require more specific language about when restart is appropriate versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied guidance with 'Useful after config changes,' suggesting a context for use. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like docker_start or docker_stop, nor does it mention prerequisites or potential side effects, leaving the guidance 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the recursive behavior by default, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like what happens with no matches (empty list vs error), whether it follows symlinks, permission requirements, performance characteristics, or output format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly communicate the core functionality. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (list of paths? file objects?), error conditions, performance considerations, or how it interacts with the filesystem. The recursive behavior hint is helpful but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context needed for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by repeating the glob pattern example from the schema. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, default values, or edge cases beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find files matching glob pattern'. It specifies the verb ('Find') and resource ('files'), and provides a concrete example ('**/*.json'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'file_tree' or 'file_search' alternatives that might exist in the broader context, though the sibling list doesn't show direct file search alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context by stating 'Recursive by default', which implies when this behavior applies. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file_tree' or 'file_recent_changes', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default limit of 10 commits, which is useful, but doesn't cover other important aspects such as whether the tool requires a Git repository context, how it handles non-existent files, if it respects Git ignore rules, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and an additional detail about the default limit in parentheses. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes into distinct clauses.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (file-specific Git history), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and default parameter behavior, but misses details on prerequisites (e.g., requires Git repo), error handling, output format, and differentiation from sibling tools. This leaves the agent with gaps in fully understanding the tool's context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('file' and 'limit'), including the default value for 'limit'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by restating the default limit, but doesn't provide additional context like path format requirements or limit constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('commit history for a specific file'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_log' (which might get general commit history) or 'git_blame' (which shows line-by-line authorship), though the focus on a single file is implied.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'for a specific file' and mentions a default limit of 10 commits, which helps set expectations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_log' (for broader history) or 'git_blame' (for detailed authorship), nor does it mention prerequisites or error 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 mentions 'list' and 'check which hooks are enabled,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires git repository access, potential errors if no .git/hooks exists, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences: 'List git hooks in .git/hooks directory. Check which hooks are enabled.' Every sentence earns its place by specifying the action and scope without waste, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, output details) and usage guidelines. For a simple read tool, it's minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, with schema description coverage at 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since it avoids redundancy and focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter explanations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List git hooks in .git/hooks directory. Check which hooks are enabled.' It specifies the verb ('list', 'check'), resource ('git hooks'), and location ('.git/hooks directory'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like git_status or git_branch_list, which are unrelated but share the git prefix, so it doesn't fully distinguish from all siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., when working with git repositories), or compare to other git-related tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all labels defined in the repository') and adds useful detail ('with colors and descriptions'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., data format, limitations) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, the description could do more to compensate, but it's not severely incomplete for such a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline expectation. No points are deducted as it doesn't have to compensate for any schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all labels') and resource ('defined in the repository') with specific attributes ('with colors and descriptions'). It distinguishes itself from other GitHub tools like 'github_add_labels' or 'github_list_issues' by focusing on repository labels. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from non-GitHub siblings, which prevents 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access), compare to similar tools like 'github_list_issues' (which might include labels), or specify use cases (e.g., for label management or filtering). This leaves 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what data is retrieved but does not cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool interacting with an external API like GitHub, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get repository metadata') and lists key data points. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication, rate limits) and does not specify the return format or structure, which could be important for an agent to process the results correctly. This makes it minimally viable but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since the tool likely operates without inputs (e.g., fetching metadata for a default or context-specific repository). This aligns with the schema, so a high score is warranted, though not perfect as it could hint at implicit context needs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repository metadata'), and lists key data points (stars, forks, language, settings). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_list_branches' or 'github_get_issue', which might also retrieve repository-related information, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 GitHub-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'github_list_issues' or 'github_get_pr'). It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on 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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about output format, whether it requires git repository context, error conditions, or performance characteristics. The description is functional but lacks 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds a complementary use case ('Check remote configuration'). There's no wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about output format, error handling, and repository context requirements that would be helpful for an agent. The description is minimally complete but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('List configured remotes') and resources ('remotes with their fetch/push URLs'), and includes an additional action ('Check remote configuration'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous within the git context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to other git tools in the sibling list (like git_branch_list or git_status).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 shows status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), requires git installation, works in any directory, or outputs format details. It lacks context on error conditions or performance characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes specific details (commit hash, sync state) without unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, or output format. Given the low complexity and no annotations, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps in practical guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is appropriate given the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the parameter-free case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Show status') and target ('all submodules'), specifying what information is included ('commit hash and sync state'). It distinguishes itself from other git tools by focusing on submodules, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling submodule tools (none are listed).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., being in a git repository with submodules), compare to other git status tools, or indicate scenarios where this is preferred over general git status.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 'comprehensive health check' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what permissions are required, if it's resource-intensive, or what output format to expect. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Run comprehensive health check') and lists the key components without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (checking multiple systems) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It outlines what's checked but doesn't cover behavioral aspects or output details, leaving gaps that could hinder effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Run') and enumerates the components checked (Git, GitHub API, system resources, MCP status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'db_health', 'society_health_all', or 'claude_mcp_status' by covering multiple systems in one comprehensive check, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing specific health checks (e.g., 'db_health', 'resource_overview', 'claude_mcp_status'), the description lacks context on whether this is a general diagnostic or when it's preferable over targeted 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is minimal and misses key 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential qualifiers without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 doesn't explain return values, error handling, or operational constraints, which are critical for a search tool with multiple parameters. The minimal description leaves significant gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing filter types ('unit, priority, or time range') and noting 'Linux only', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already specifies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Search') and resource ('systemd journal logs'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'log_search' by specifying the Linux systemd context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for systemd journal logs on Linux, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log_search' or 'linux_systemd_status', and doesn't 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Quick way' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is, if there are rate limits, or how it handles large datasets. The description is too vague to guide an agent effectively.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a logging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('minutes' is well-documented). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('error-level log entries'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'log_get_warnings' or 'log_search' beyond mentioning 'error-level' and 'quick way,' leaving room for sibling comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context with 'Quick way to find issues and exceptions,' suggesting it's for troubleshooting. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'log_get_warnings' or 'log_search,' and doesn't 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists files and helps discover logs, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it's read-only or has side effects, what format the output takes (e.g., list of filenames, metadata), if there are rate limits, or if specific permissions are required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds context about the intended use. Every word earns its place, 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, safety). Without annotations or output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is incomplete for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage (empty object), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is justified since the schema fully covers the parameter aspect, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List available log files in configured directory' specifies the verb (list) and resource (log files). 'Discover logs to analyze' adds context about the intended use. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'claude_log_files', 'claude_logs', or 'log_search', which appear related to log operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance: 'Discover logs to analyze' implies usage for log analysis preparation, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, exclusions, or alternatives. Given multiple sibling tools with 'log' in their names (e.g., claude_log_files, log_search), there's no guidance on when to choose this tool over others, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names 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 mentions 'real-time' monitoring, which suggests streaming or live updates, but doesn't clarify if this is a one-time fetch or continuous tail, whether it requires file access permissions, what happens if the file doesn't exist, or if there are rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is minimal for a tool that could have significant operational implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds usage context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 is incomplete for a tool that reads log files. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., raw text, structured data), error conditions, or important behavioral details like whether it follows rotating logs or requires specific file permissions. For a log access tool with potential security and operational implications, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 ('source' and 'lines'). The description adds marginal value by implying 'lines' corresponds to 'last N lines' and 'source' to 'log file,' but doesn't provide additional context like valid source formats, line count limits, or default behavior when 'lines' is omitted (it's optional in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get last N lines from a log file' specifies the verb (get) and resource (log file lines). It distinguishes from siblings like 'log_search' (searching) and 'log_get_recent' (time-based), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tmux_pane_tail' which has similar tailing functionality in a different context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context with 'Monitor recent activity in real-time,' which implies this is for real-time monitoring rather than historical analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'log_get_recent' (time-based) or 'log_search' (pattern-based), 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't mention refresh rates, data freshness, whether this requires special permissions, or what format the output takes. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the essential information without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key detail about per-interface measurement in a natural flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about output format, measurement intervals, and differentiation from similar sibling tools. It's minimally adequate but leaves gaps that could affect tool selection and result interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters, earning a baseline score above the minimum viable level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('current network bandwidth usage in bytes/sec per interface'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'network_stats' or 'resource_network_stats', but the per-interface focus provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'network_stats' or 'resource_network_stats' that appear in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with similar monitoring 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 states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly communicates what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's zero parameters and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks behavioral details like output format or usage context. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('complete network overview'), listing key components like interfaces, connections, ports, and gateway. It distinguishes itself from more specific sibling tools like network_interfaces or network_gateway by offering a comprehensive overview, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for a broad network overview, it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer more detailed sibling tools like network_connections or network_listening_ports.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 sorting and limiting, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is real-time or cached data, if it requires elevated permissions, pagination behavior, output format, or error conditions. For a system monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('List running processes with CPU/memory usage') and follows with key functionality ('Sort by...'). Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a system monitoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., process list structure, units for CPU/memory), behavioral traits like permissions or data freshness, or how it differs from similar tools. The 100% schema coverage helps parameters, but overall context is lacking.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('sort', 'limit') fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning sorting options ('cpu, memory, pid, or name') which the schema already covers. No additional semantics like default values, constraints, or examples are provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('running processes') with specific attributes ('CPU/memory usage'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'process_info' (detailed info), 'process_search' (searching), and 'process_top' (real-time monitoring) by focusing on listing with usage metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'resource_processes' which might overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to view processes with resource metrics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'process_search', 'process_top', or 'resource_processes'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than 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 are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the default limit (10) and the 'quick' nature, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires special permissions, what resource metrics are included (CPU, memory, etc.), the output format, refresh rate, or system impact. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise: two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose with key details (top N, resource usage, default), and the second adds contextual guidance ('Quick system overview'). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 is incomplete for a system monitoring tool. It lacks details on what 'resource usage' entails, output format, permissions needed, or system impact. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description adds minimal value by restating the default (10) but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ranges, units, or effects beyond what's in 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get top N processes by resource usage' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('processes'), plus the scope ('by resource usage'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'process_list' or 'resource_processes', but the 'top N' and 'resource usage' qualifiers provide some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context: 'Quick system overview' suggests this tool is for a high-level summary rather than detailed analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'process_list' or 'resource_processes', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Monitor system performance,' which hints at a read-only, monitoring function, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires permissions, how data is sampled, if it's real-time or historical, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded: 'Get CPU usage percentage (overall and per-core). Monitor system performance.' The first sentence directly states the purpose, and the second adds brief context. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage but lacks details on output format, behavioral constraints, or differentiation from siblings. For a simple monitoring tool, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, as there are no inputs to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since the description compensates by not introducing unnecessary parameter details, though it could slightly clarify the lack of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get CPU usage percentage (overall and per-core).' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('CPU usage percentage'), including the scope ('overall and per-core'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resource_load' or 'resource_overview', which may also provide performance metrics, 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'Monitor system performance,' which implies a usage context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resource_load' or 'process_cpu_history.' No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool references are included, leaving the agent with insufficient 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it describes what the tool returns (load averages), it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires special permissions, how frequently it can be called, whether it's a real-time snapshot or cached data, or what format the output takes. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second sentence provides the purpose/context. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary action first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It tells what the tool returns (load averages) and why you'd use it (assess system stress), but doesn't describe the output format, units, or interpretation. For a monitoring tool with no annotations or output schema, more detail about the return value would be helpful, though the simplicity of the tool makes this less critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. It focuses on what the tool does rather than what it accepts as input, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Assess') and resources ('system load average'), specifying the time windows (1, 5, 15 min). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resource_cpu or resource_overview by focusing specifically on load averages rather than broader system metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools in the resource_* category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. While it mentions 'Assess system stress over time,' it doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable to other resource monitoring tools like resource_cpu, resource_memory, or resource_overview. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named 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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the statistics are returned in, whether it's real-time or historical data, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes specific metric examples. Every word earns its place, making it maximally concise while still informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, without annotations and with sibling tools that might overlap (like 'network_stats'), the description doesn't fully address the tool's place in the ecosystem or provide enough behavioral context for confident use. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally hint at return format, which it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters since none exist. It focuses on what the tool retrieves rather than how to configure it, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('network interface traffic statistics') with specific metrics listed (RX/TX bytes, packets, errors). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'network_overview' or 'network_bandwidth' by focusing specifically on interface-level traffic statistics. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'network_stats' (a sibling tool) which might 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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. With sibling tools like 'network_overview', 'network_bandwidth', and 'network_stats' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool's scope or when it's the appropriate choice. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other network-related tools 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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, how frequently it can be called, what format the output takes, or whether it provides real-time or historical data. For a system monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get comprehensive system overview: CPU, memory, disk, and top processes.' Every word contributes meaning—it specifies the action, scope, and components. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns (CPU, memory, disk, top processes). However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify the format, units, or structure of the returned data. For a system monitoring tool, more detail about what 'comprehensive' means would be helpful, but the description meets minimum viability given the simple context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's nothing to compensate for and no misleading parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get comprehensive system overview: CPU, memory, disk, and top processes.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resources (CPU, memory, disk, top processes), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'resource_cpu', 'resource_memory', or 'resource_disk', which appear to provide more specific metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. With sibling tools like 'resource_cpu', 'resource_memory', 'resource_disk', and 'process_top' that seem to offer more granular data, there's no indication whether this tool aggregates those or serves a different purpose. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to other tools 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 behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the summary returns, whether it's real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. For a metrics tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point with no unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context. Without annotations, it should ideally mention what kind of metrics are included, the time range covered, or the format of the summary. The description is minimally adequate but leaves questions about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, which is efficient and correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get aggregated metrics summary') and the resource ('for all Societies'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling metrics tools like 'metrics_aggregate' or 'metrics_query' that might also handle aggregated metrics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple sibling tools that appear related to metrics (metrics_aggregate, metrics_collect, metrics_query, society_health_all, society_health_single), but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool is appropriate versus those 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 but lacks behavioral details. It states the tool creates a directory and templates, but doesn't disclose if this is idempotent, requires specific permissions, overwrites existing files, or what happens on failure. For a setup tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a setup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or output format. Given the complexity (initialization can have side effects), it should provide more context to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'path', so the schema already documents it well. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Initialize') and resource ('Spec-Kit in a project'), specifying that it creates a '.speckit/ directory with templates.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like speckit_analyze or speckit_status, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or related tools like speckit_status for checking initialization state, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions capturing 'scrollback history' which adds useful context about what data is retrieved. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific tmux permissions, if it captures only visible output or full buffer, what format the output returns, or any rate limits. The description is minimal for a tool that interacts with terminal sessions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the core functionality, the second adds purpose context. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the debugging purpose into the main action statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at behavior (capturing scrollback), but leaves significant gaps: no information about return format, error conditions, permission requirements, or practical limitations. Given the complexity of interacting with tmux panes, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'scrollback history' which relates to the 'lines' parameter concept but doesn't provide additional syntax or format guidance. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Capture terminal output') and resource ('from a pane'), and mentions the purpose ('for debugging'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_pane_tail (which likely streams output) by focusing on capturing scrollback history. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tmux_pane_search which might also capture output.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('for debugging') but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an active tmux session) or compare with similar tools like tmux_pane_tail for real-time monitoring versus historical capture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if the pane doesn't exist, what format the output returns (just command name vs full command line), or whether it works with detached panes. The description is minimal and lacks 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately concise with two clear sentences that directly address the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the primary function and follows with additional context about identifying processes. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more structured with usage examples or limitations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks important context about how it behaves, what it returns, and when to use it. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more operational details to be truly complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'target' documented as 'Target pane'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful parameter context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Identify') and resources ('command currently running in a pane', 'active processes'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tmux_list_panes (which lists panes) and tmux_pane_capture (which captures pane content) by focusing specifically on the currently executing command.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active tmux session), limitations (e.g., only works with tmux panes), or when other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., using tmux_pane_capture for full output instead of just the command 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool is for getting logs and debugging, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the logs are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or what 'recent' means temporally. The description provides minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 8 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get recent Claude Code logs') followed by usage context. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides the minimum viable information. It states what the tool does and includes a default value hint, but doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format, error conditions, or differentiation from sibling tools. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'lines' fully documented in the schema. The description mentions 'default: 50 lines' which adds some context about typical usage, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent Claude Code logs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'claude_log_search' or 'claude_log_files', which appear to be related logging tools on the same server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied usage context with 'Debug issues' and mentions a default parameter value, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'claude_log_search' or 'log_get_recent'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the connection fails, whether results are paginated, or what format the output takes. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality. There's no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration - every word earns its place in defining what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only listing tool with comprehensive schema documentation (100% coverage), the description provides adequate basic purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention something about the return format or structure. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks depth for a tool with multiple connection parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how parameters interact or which combinations are valid). 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all tables') and resource ('in the database') with additional detail about what information is included ('with row counts'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like db_query (which executes queries) and db_schema (which might show schema details without counts).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 db_schema or db_query. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a database connection established first) or compare it to other database-related tools 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool lists images 'with size and tags' and helps find 'dangling images to clean up,' which gives some context about output format and a practical application. However, it doesn't describe critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, or how results are formatted (e.g., as a table or JSON). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing images with filtering options), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has notable gaps. It covers the basic purpose and a use case but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. It's adequate for a simple listing tool but could benefit from more context to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('all' and 'dangling'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'dangling' relates to cleanup or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Docker images with size and tags.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Docker images') with additional details about what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling Docker tools like 'docker_ps' or 'docker_inspect' beyond the dangling images cleanup mention.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some implied usage guidance with 'Find dangling images to clean up,' suggesting a specific use case for the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'docker_ps' (which shows containers, not images) or provide clear exclusions. The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 the output format ('detailed JSON config') and a use case ('Debug networking and mounts'), but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part ('Get detailed JSON config', 'container or image', 'Debug networking and mounts') adds specific value, 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.
Completeness3/5Given 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 provides basic purpose and usage but lacks depth. It covers what the tool does and a use case, but for a tool that likely returns complex JSON data, more context on output structure or behavioral traits would be beneficial. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (target and type). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. However, it implies the target is for inspection and the type helps specify the object, aligning with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed JSON config') and target ('container or image'), with a specific purpose ('Debug networking and mounts'). It distinguishes from siblings like docker_logs or docker_ps by focusing on configuration inspection rather than logs or process listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all Docker-related tools (e.g., docker_images also lists images).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for debugging networking and mounts, suggesting when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like docker_ps for status or docker_logs for runtime output, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 'Clean up redundant files,' which implies a read-only identification step, but doesn't clarify if the tool itself performs deletion or just reports duplicates. It lacks details on permissions needed, output format, performance considerations (e.g., large directories), or error handling. The description adds minimal behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with zero waste: 'Find duplicate files by content hash.' states the core purpose, and 'Clean up redundant files.' adds context. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's intent without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 is minimal but covers the basic purpose. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or behavioral nuances, which are important for a tool that might handle large file systems. However, the high schema coverage helps, making it adequate but with clear gaps in behavioral transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('directory' and 'pattern') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. However, since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't need to compensate but also doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find duplicate files by content hash' specifies the verb (find) and resource (duplicate files) with the method (content hash). It distinguishes from siblings like file_checksum (which computes hashes) and file_search (which searches by name/pattern). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from file_compare (which might compare specific files).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through 'Clean up redundant files,' suggesting this tool is for identifying duplicates as a precursor to cleanup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like file_compare for direct comparison or file_search for pattern-based searches. 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'List repository issues with filters. Filter by state, labels, or assignee (default: open).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 is minimally adequate for a list tool with documented parameters. It covers the basic purpose and filtering options but lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or authentication. For a tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 with descriptions and an enum for 'state'. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the default for 'state' ('default: open') and listing filter types, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List repository issues with filters.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('repository issues'), and scope ('with filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'github_get_issue' or 'github_create_issue', which would require 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool by mentioning filters ('Filter by state, labels, or assignee'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'github_get_issue' (for single issues) or 'github_list_prs' (for pull requests). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default state filter but doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'per_page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or return format. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List pull requests') and immediately adds the most important qualification about filtering. There's zero wasted text, making it optimally concise for its informational content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally mention the return format (list of PR objects) or pagination behavior to be more complete. The current description leaves the agent guessing about what the output looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 adds minimal value by mentioning the 'optional state filter (default: open)', which slightly clarifies the 'state' parameter's default behavior. This meets the baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List pull requests') and resource ('pull requests'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'github_get_pr' or 'github_list_issues', which would require a more specific scope statement to earn 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning the 'optional state filter (default: open)', suggesting when to use different parameter values. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'github_get_pr' (for single PR details) or 'github_list_issues', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite (git-lfs installation) but doesn't describe what 'status' includes, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two clear sentences: one stating the purpose and one stating the prerequisite. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 do more to explain what 'status' includes, what format the output takes, and whether this is a read-only operation. The prerequisite is helpful but insufficient for a tool that presumably returns structured information about Git LFS files.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, earning a baseline score of 4 for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('Git LFS tracked files and status'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_status' or 'git_submodule_status', 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a prerequisite ('Requires git-lfs to be installed'), which provides some usage context. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_status' or other Git-related tools, leaving the agent to infer appropriate 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool shows (details, diff, metadata) and the default behavior for the commit parameter, but doesn't cover aspects like output format, error handling, permissions needed, or whether it's read-only (though 'Show' implies it likely is). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second clarifies the default parameter behavior. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the purpose and default parameter behavior, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or how it differs from similar tools like git_diff. For a tool with no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'commit' documented as 'Commit hash (default: HEAD)'. The description adds value by reinforcing the default behavior ('Defaults to HEAD if no commit specified'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Show' and the resource 'details of a commit including diff and metadata', which is specific and informative. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like git_log (which lists commits) or git_diff (which shows differences), though the mention of 'details' and 'metadata' 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage by stating 'Defaults to HEAD if no commit specified', which gives context on when to omit the parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_log for commit lists or git_diff for focused diffs, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists units 'with status' and allows filtering, but doesn't describe what information is included in the listing, whether it shows all units by default, how results are formatted, or any performance considerations. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'List systemd units with status' establishes the purpose, and 'Filter by type (service, timer) or state (Linux only)' adds key usage information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering parameters but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or behavioral characteristics that would be important 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters having clear enum values and descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the filtering capability exists, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter usage, defaults, or interactions. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('systemd units'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'linux_systemd_status' by focusing on listing units with filtering capabilities rather than checking status of a specific unit. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools in the server.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning filtering capabilities ('Filter by type or state') and specifying 'Linux only' for state filtering, which suggests platform constraints. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linux_systemd_status' or other system monitoring tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether results are paginated, sorted (likely by timestamp), the default time window if 'minutes' is omitted, or what happens if no logs match. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get recent log entries') and briefly mentions optional filters. There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and filtering scope but lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 ('source', 'limit', 'minutes') with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the filtering options but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states, such as default values or interaction effects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('recent log entries') with optional filtering scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'log_get_errors' and 'log_get_warnings' by focusing on recency rather than severity, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'log_search' which might offer more advanced filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving recent logs with basic filtering by source and time window. However, it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'log_search' (which might support more complex queries) or 'log_tail' (for real-time streaming), 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default number of pings (4), which is useful context, but it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, output format, or rate limits. For a network diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 core purpose and includes a key detail (default pings) without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (network diagnostic with 2 parameters) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and a default value, but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, which are important for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (host and count) with descriptions. The description adds the default value for count, which provides some extra context, but it does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('ping') and resource ('a host'), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by specifying its unique function of checking connectivity and measuring latency. This is distinct from other network tools like network_dns_lookup or network_traceroute.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves detailed process information, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits like error handling, performance characteristics, or what happens if the PID doesn't exist. It adds basic context about what info is returned but lacks 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed info about a process by PID') and lists key attributes without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. For a simple read operation, it's complete enough to be functional but not robust.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'pid' clearly documented as 'Process ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed info about a process by PID' with specific attributes listed (CPU, memory, command, and status). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('process'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'process_list' or 'process_search', which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'process_list' (for listing processes) or 'process_search' (for finding processes), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions output format options but doesn't specify default behavior when parameters are omitted, error handling for invalid timezones, whether this is a read-only operation, or any performance characteristics. The description provides basic functional information but 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and key capabilities. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple time retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks completeness. It doesn't specify what happens when parameters are omitted, what the default timezone or format might be, or describe the structure of the return value. The description is minimal but functional for this straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the three format options, but doesn't provide additional context about timezone format expectations or default behaviors. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get current time in any timezone' with specific output format options. It uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('current time'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'time_convert' or 'time_diff' which serve different time-related functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'Supports ISO, unix, or human-readable output' which suggests when different formats might be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'time_convert' or mention any prerequisites or limitations for timezone handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 is 'useful for waiting on long operations,' which hints at a monitoring or polling use case, but it doesn't specify what 'busy' means (e.g., running vs. idle), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the output format is. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key usage scenario. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains the purpose and a use case but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'busy' entails, error handling) and doesn't leverage the absence of annotations to clarify safety or side effects. It 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage ('target pane'), so the schema already documents it well. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a pane is running a command.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('pane'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like tmux_pane_current_command or tmux_pane_capture, which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides some usage context: 'Useful for waiting on long operations.' This implies when to use it (e.g., monitoring command execution), but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The guidance is helpful 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's purpose but omits critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's synchronous/asynchronous, potential side effects (e.g., executing commands in the pane), error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded and efficient, using two concise sentences that directly state the tool's function and typical use case without redundancy. Every word contributes value, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (sending input to a tmux pane), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or output expectations, which are important for a tool that interacts with live sessions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for 'keys' (e.g., special tmux key sequences) or constraints for 'target'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Send keystrokes or text') and target ('to a tmux pane'), with a specific purpose ('Use for automation or remote commands'). It distinguishes from siblings like tmux_list_panes or tmux_pane_capture by focusing on input rather than inspection, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for 'automation or remote commands,' suggesting when to use it, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or direct alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites like needing an active tmux session or compare with other input 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is retrieved (status, start type, dependencies) but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions (e.g., admin rights), error handling (e.g., if the service doesn't exist), or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and includes essential platform constraints, making it easy to parse quickly. Every element earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and platform context but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return values. It is minimally viable for understanding what the tool does but incomplete for safe and effective use, especially given the absence of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'service' documented as 'Service name'. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as examples or format specifics (e.g., case sensitivity). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Windows service status, start type, and dependencies') with platform specificity ('Windows only'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linux_systemd_status' or 'process_info', which reduces 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying 'Windows only', which provides some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for Windows services vs. Linux systemd units or general process info), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this includes all tags (including lightweight vs annotated), how results are formatted, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. The 'Useful for finding release versions' adds some context but doesn't fully describe 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. There's zero wasted verbiage, no repetition of the tool name, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameter-less read operation without annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers what the tool does and a use case, but lacks details about return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would be helpful for an agent. The absence of output schema means the description doesn't compensate by explaining return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on parameter details, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. This meets the baseline expectation for parameter-less tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all tags with their associated commits'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from other git tools by focusing specifically on tags rather than branches, commits, or diffs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'github_list_releases' which might serve similar release-finding purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance with 'Useful for finding release versions,' suggesting a specific context for tag exploration. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'git_log' for commit history or 'github_list_releases' for GitHub-specific releases. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires git repository access, how it handles errors, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently add context about what information is shown. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format, error handling, or dependencies. For a tool with no structured fields to rely on, the description should do more to compensate, making it minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain, and the description focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('git worktrees'), and specifies what information is shown ('path and branch for each worktree'). It distinguishes this tool from other git-related tools like git_branch_list or git_status by focusing specifically on worktrees. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'for parallel development,' suggesting when this tool might be relevant. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like git_branch_list or git_status, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is helpful but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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 the dry-run option, which adds some context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Delete' but not explicitly stated), permission requirements, error handling, or what happens on success. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part earns its place by stating the core action and a key usage tip.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Kubernetes deletion operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, and what the tool returns, which is crucial for an agent to use it correctly in a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (resource, name, namespace, dryRun). The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'dryRun=true' as a usage tip, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers, such as examples for resource types or namespace defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('Kubernetes resource'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'k8s_apply' or 'process_kill' which might also perform deletion operations in different contexts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on using 'dryRun=true to preview deletion,' which is a clear when-to-use tip for safe operation. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'k8s_apply' for updates or specify when not to use this tool, so it's not a full 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions listing categories with counts, but it doesn't disclose important traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or the format of the output (e.g., structured data vs. plain text). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with zero waste: 'List all tool categories with tool counts. Discover available capabilities.' Each sentence adds value—the first states the core action, and the second hints at the use case. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., safety, output format) that would be helpful for an agent. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it only provides basic purpose and implied usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline score of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's no parameter burden to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all tool categories with tool counts.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('tool categories'), and output detail ('with tool counts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also list categories or tools, though none appear in the provided 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Discover available capabilities,' which implies this tool is used for exploration or inventory purposes. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., mcp_search_tools or mcp_get_tool_info from the sibling list), 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), what permissions might be required, how the results are formatted, or any potential side effects like network probing that could trigger security alerts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just 8 words split into two clear clauses. The first clause states the core function, and the second adds important context about verification. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format or what 'Verify internet routing' entails operationally. Given the network diagnostic nature and lack of annotations, more detail about behavioral expectations would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the description doesn't incorrectly mention parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Verify') and resources ('default gateway IP and interface', 'internet routing'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_interfaces or network_route_table by focusing specifically on the default gateway and routing verification, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'Verify internet routing', suggesting this tool is for checking connectivity or routing issues. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_ping or network_traceroute, 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 carries full burden. It mentions 'Check connectivity' which hints at a diagnostic purpose, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires special permissions, what format the output takes, or if it has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - two brief sentences that communicate the core functionality and a usage hint. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by a contextual hint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool returns (interfaces with IP, MAC, status) and a usage context. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more detail about the return format, potential limitations, or error conditions to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. It efficiently focuses on what the tool does rather than parameter details, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('network interfaces') with specific attributes (IP addresses, MAC, status). It distinguishes from siblings like network_connections or network_listening_ports by focusing on interface enumeration rather than connections or ports. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from network_overview or network_stats which might overlap in scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking connectivity ('Check connectivity'), suggesting this tool is appropriate for network diagnostics. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like network_overview or network_stats, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. 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. It states this is a read operation ('Show'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, output format, or whether it requires elevated privileges. For a network diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core function, the second adds context. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format, error conditions, or network-specific constraints. For a network diagnostic tool, more context about what 'Show' returns would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter information to add beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Show IP routing table' (verb+resource) and adds context with 'Debug traffic routing and network paths.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like network_gateway or network_interfaces by focusing specifically on routing tables. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from network_traceroute which also deals with network paths.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'Debug traffic routing and network paths,' suggesting this tool is for troubleshooting network routing issues. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like network_traceroute or network_gateway, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is for reading WiFi details, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if it works offline, potential rate limits, or error conditions. The platform constraint is helpful but insufficient for a mutation-free tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get WiFi connection details') and adds necessary specifics (data points and platform scope) without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers what the tool does and platform limitations, but lacks details on return format, error handling, or deeper behavioral context. Without an output schema, it should ideally hint at the response structure, but the simplicity keeps it from being incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details since none exist, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps, but it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required,' preventing a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('WiFi connection details'), specifying what information is retrieved (SSID, signal strength, channel) and the platform scope (macOS/Linux). It distinguishes itself from siblings like network_interfaces or network_overview by focusing specifically on WiFi details. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all network-related tools, 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the platform specification (macOS/Linux), suggesting it's not for Windows systems. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_interfaces or network_stats, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the OS limitation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of 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 'Get' (implying read-only) and the output type ('hierarchy'), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles system processes, if it's real-time or cached, potential performance impact, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Get process hierarchy' establishes the action and resource, 'showing parent-child relationships' clarifies the output structure, and 'Understand process spawning' adds context without redundancy. No wasted words or unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic but incomplete picture. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on output format (e.g., tree structure, JSON), behavioral constraints, or error handling. For a read-only tool with no inputs, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in clarifying what 'hierarchy' means in practice.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by not mentioning any. This aligns perfectly with the schema, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get process hierarchy showing parent-child relationships. Understand process spawning.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('process hierarchy'), and distinguishes it from siblings like process_list or process_children by focusing on hierarchical relationships rather than flat listing or direct children. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from process_search or process_info, which could also involve process relationships.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'Understand process spawning,' suggesting it's for analyzing how processes are created. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like process_list (for all processes) or process_children (for direct children of a specific process). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a real-time snapshot or historical data, what format the temperature data returns (degrees, units), whether it requires special permissions, or if there are rate limits. The description is functional but lacks operational context needed for proper 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just two short sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core function, the second provides the monitoring context. No wasted words, well-structured with the primary purpose front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks important context about what the output contains (temperature values, units, timestamps, throttling indicators). Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally specify what kind of data structure or information the agent can expect to receive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This earns a baseline 4 for parameter semantics as it correctly avoids redundant information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Monitor') and resources ('CPU and system temperatures', 'thermal throttling'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'resource_cpu' or 'resource_overview' by focusing specifically on temperature monitoring rather than general CPU metrics or system overview.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('Monitor for thermal throttling') suggesting this tool is for thermal monitoring scenarios, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'resource_overview' for general system health or 'process_cpu_history' for CPU performance trends. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get', 'Check'), it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it's real-time or cached data, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two short sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second reinforces the purpose with slightly different phrasing. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does but lacks details about output format, data freshness, or system requirements. Given the simplicity of the tool (0 params, no complex behavior), the description is reasonably complete though could benefit from output format clarification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Get', 'Check') and resources ('system uptime', 'boot timestamp', 'how long system has been running'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resource_cpu, resource_memory, and resource_overview by focusing specifically on uptime metrics rather than broader system resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('Check how long system has been running') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like resource_overview (which might include uptime) or other monitoring tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.
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 key behavioral traits: the operation is 'graceful' (implying SIGTERM first) and has an optional timeout before SIGKILL. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, side effects (e.g., container state changes), error conditions, or what happens if the container isn't running. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is moderately informative 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Stop a running container gracefully') and followed by a key optional feature ('Optional timeout before SIGKILL'). Zero waste—every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 is moderately complete for a 2-parameter mutation tool. It covers the basic action and timeout behavior but lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, or interactions with sibling tools. For a tool that stops containers, more context on side effects or state changes would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 ('container' and 'timeout') with their types and basic descriptions. The description adds marginal value by implying 'timeout' relates to 'Seconds to wait before killing', which aligns with the schema. No additional syntax, constraints, or examples are provided beyond what the schema offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Stop') and resource ('a running container'), and specifies it's done 'gracefully'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_restart (which restarts) and docker_kill (not present but implied by SIGKILL mention). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_pause or other container management tools in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'gracefully' and 'SIGKILL', suggesting this is for controlled stopping rather than force-killing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like docker_restart or when not to use it (e.g., for paused containers). No prerequisites or dependencies 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 of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions what gets compared (size, timestamps, content hash) and that it 'detects differences', it does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., missing files), or the output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Compare two files') followed by specifics ('size, timestamps, and content hash') and outcome ('Detect differences'). Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (comparing files across multiple attributes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers what is compared but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or output structure. It meets basic clarity but falls short of providing complete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (path1, path2) clearly documented in the schema as file paths. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as path format requirements or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does 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 ('compare', 'detect') and resources ('two files'), and explicitly lists the comparison aspects: size, timestamps, and content hash. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file_checksum (which only computes a single hash) and file_diff (which might focus on textual differences rather than metadata and hash comparison).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for comparing files across multiple dimensions (size, timestamps, hash), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like file_checksum (for single-file hashing) or file_diff (for content differences). It provides context about what gets compared but lacks explicit guidance 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.
- 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 discloses the default limit behavior, which is useful, but doesn't mention ordering (chronological/reverse), pagination, format of returned data, or any error conditions. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this is minimally 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and key attributes, second explains parameter usage. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers basics but lacks details on return format, ordering, or error handling. Without annotations, it should ideally mention it's a safe read operation. It's minimally complete but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'limit' parameter with its default. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond restating the default value. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('commit history') with specific attributes (author, date, message). It distinguishes from siblings like git_show (single commit) or git_file_history (file-specific), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing commit history with optional limit control, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like git_file_history (for specific files) or git_show (for single commits). No guidance on prerequisites 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the dry-run option, which hints at potential changes, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: it doesn't specify that this is a mutating operation (implied by 'apply'), what permissions are required, whether changes are idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a Kubernetes tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides a key usage tip. It's appropriately sized for a tool with clear parameters and no complex output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (Kubernetes operations can be high-stakes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and a safety tip but misses details on permissions, idempotency, error handling, or return values. For a mutating tool in this context, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial to achieve full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (file, namespace, dryRun) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the purpose of dryRun for previewing changes, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or context for the parameters. Baseline 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('apply') and resource ('Kubernetes manifest'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like k8s_delete or k8s_describe by focusing on applying manifests rather than deleting or describing resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential manifest-related operations beyond what's obvious 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance to 'Use dryRun=true to preview changes first,' which is valuable context for safe usage. It doesn't mention when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings, but the dry-run advice implicitly suggests caution with live changes. No misleading guidance is 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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles large log files, what format the statistics are returned in, or if there are any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get log file statistics') and immediately specifies the key metrics. Every word adds value with zero 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.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like permissions, performance, or return format, which could hinder effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs, meeting the baseline for parameterless tools without unnecessary details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('log file statistics'), and it enumerates the specific metrics returned (size, line count, error frequency). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'log_search' or 'log_tail' that focus on different log-related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing log files available), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'log_sources' or 'file_stats', 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the core action of checking port openness, it doesn't describe important behavioral traits such as timeout behavior, what constitutes 'open' (e.g., TCP handshake success), error conditions (e.g., host unreachable, connection refused), or whether this performs a simple connect scan versus more advanced checks. For a network diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two short sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, and the second adds valuable context about the purpose. It's front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (network diagnostic with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (timeouts, error handling) and output expectations. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what results to expect (e.g., success/failure, latency), but it doesn't.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('host' and 'port') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, valid ranges, or protocol specifics). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Check if a TCP port is open') on a specific resource ('on a remote host') with additional context about the goal ('Test service availability'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_ping or network_ssl_check by focusing specifically on TCP port availability testing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'Test service availability,' suggesting this tool is for verifying network service reachability. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like network_ping (for host reachability) or network_ssl_check (for SSL/TLS verification), 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't mention whether this requires special permissions, whether it returns real-time or historical data, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. For a monitoring tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose with specific details. Every word earns its place - 'Get' establishes the action, 'network I/O statistics' specifies the resource, and the list clarifies exactly what metrics are retrieved. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is reasonably complete about what data is retrieved. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like output format, permissions needed, or whether this returns current snapshots versus historical data. The description does the minimum viable job but leaves gaps in operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than what it accepts.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('network I/O statistics') with specific details about what data is retrieved ('bytes, packets, errors, and drops per interface'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'network_bandwidth' or 'network_overview' by focusing on per-interface statistics rather than aggregated metrics or general overviews.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'resource_network_stats' or 'network_bandwidth'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or any explicit when/when-not scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the tool 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, how frequently it can be called, whether it works on all laptop types, what happens if no battery is present, or what format the output takes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the verb 'Get' followed by the specific resources being retrieved. Every word earns its place in this compact description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what data is retrieved. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't specify the format of the returned battery data (e.g., percentages, time formats, status categories) or any limitations (e.g., platform-specific behavior). The description is minimally complete but lacks depth for optimal agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters, maintaining focus on what the tool actually does. This meets the baseline expectation for parameterless tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('laptop battery status, charge level, and time remaining'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resource_cpu, resource_memory, and resource_overview by focusing specifically on battery metrics rather than other system resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 resource_overview (which might include battery info) or other resource_* tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, frequency recommendations, or specific contexts where battery status is particularly relevant versus other system metrics.
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 a 'comprehensive health report,' which adds useful context about output format. However, it doesn't mention behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impact, or any rate limits. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's minimal on 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and scope, and the second clarifies the output. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (simple health check with no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and output type but lacks details on what 'health' entails, report format, or integration with other tools. For a tool with no structured metadata, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. It appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check health status of all 26 Miyabi Societies at once.' It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('Miyabi Societies'), and scope ('all 26 at once'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'society_health_single' beyond the 'all at once' phrasing, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'all 26 Miyabi Societies at once,' suggesting this is for a comprehensive overview rather than individual checks. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'society_health_single' or other health-related tools like 'health_check' or 'db_health.' No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the destructive options (removing volumes/orphan containers), it doesn't specify whether this is a reversible operation, what permissions are required, whether it stops all services or just some, or what happens to running containers. For a potentially destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the primary purpose first, followed by optional behaviors. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context but lacks important behavioral details. Given this is a potentially destructive operation (stopping services, optionally removing resources) with no annotations, the description should do more to explain the implications and typical usage patterns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (path, volumes, removeOrphans). The description mentions the optional behaviors that correspond to the boolean parameters, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Stop Compose services') and resource ('Compose services'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compose_up (which starts services) and compose_ps (which lists services). The description goes beyond just the tool name by specifying the action and optional behaviors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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 (to stop Docker Compose services) and mentions optional behaviors (removing volumes and orphan containers). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though compose_up is clearly the opposite operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it clearly describes the core function, it lacks behavioral details such as whether this makes an external API call, potential rate limits, privacy implications, or what format the IP address is returned in (IPv4/IPv6). The description is minimal but doesn't contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and provides exactly the information needed to understand what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks details about return format, potential errors, or behavioral characteristics that would be helpful for an agent. The simplicity of the tool means the description is mostly sufficient but could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully covers the parameter space.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('your public IP address') with precise scope ('as seen from the internet'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like network_interfaces or network_gateway by focusing on external-facing IP rather than internal network details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (when you need to know your external IP), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_overview or network_stats. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about optimal 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'requires lsof,' indicating a dependency or prerequisite, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other traits like whether it's read-only, potential side effects, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences that directly state the purpose and usage context. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information. It efficiently communicates the tool's function and application without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a diagnostic tool with a dependency), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite ('requires lsof'), but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error scenarios. For a tool in this context, more information would be beneficial to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'pid' parameter clearly documented as 'Process ID.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't compensate with extra semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List open files and sockets for a process.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('open files and sockets'), and distinguishes it from siblings like process_list or process_info by focusing on file descriptors. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like process_ports or network_connections, 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 Guidelines4/5Does 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: 'Debug file handle leaks.' It implies usage for diagnostic purposes related to file descriptor issues. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as process_ports for network connections or file_read for file content, which would be needed 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.
- 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. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe the return format, whether it provides real-time or historical data, what units are used, or any performance characteristics. The mention of 'identify leaks' suggests some analysis capability, but this isn't elaborated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two clear sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds important context about use cases. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate basic purpose but lacks details about return format, data structure, or behavioral characteristics. Given that this is a read-only monitoring tool (implied by 'Get'), the description is minimally complete but could benefit from more detail about what information is returned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb ('Get') and resource ('RAM and swap memory usage'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying its unique focus on memory metrics. It also adds secondary purposes ('Check available memory and identify leaks') that further differentiate it from general resource monitoring tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the phrase 'identify leaks,' suggesting this tool is appropriate for troubleshooting memory issues. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like resource_overview or resource_processes, 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.
- 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 mentions the default behavior for 'end' parameter, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like input date format requirements, timezone handling, error conditions, or output format details. The description is functional but lacks depth for a mutation-free calculation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise: two short sentences that communicate essential information with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an important usage note. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a calculation tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and a key default, but doesn't address output format, precision, or edge cases. Given the tool's moderate complexity (date/time calculations can be nuanced), the description could benefit from more context about what the calculation returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 reinforcing the default for 'end' parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., date format examples, timezone considerations). 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate time difference between two dates.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('time difference'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'time_convert' or 'time_current', which prevents 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 Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage: 'Defaults to now if end omitted.' This tells the agent when to omit the 'end' parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'time_convert' for other time operations, or provide exclusions for invalid date formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead 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. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires tmux to be installed/running, what format the output takes (list, table, JSON), whether it shows detached sessions, or if there are any permissions requirements. The description provides basic functionality but lacks operational context needed for a tool with zero 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two short sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core functionality with specific details (window count and status). The second sentence adds context about discovering active sessions. There's zero wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It states what the tool does but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or dependencies. Given the complexity is low (simple listing operation) and there are no annotations to supplement understanding, the description meets minimum viability but leaves operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 (not 5) because while it correctly omits parameter discussion, it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required' which could help clarify for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List all tmux sessions') and specifies what information is included ('with window count and status'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tmux_list_windows and tmux_list_panes by focusing on sessions rather than windows or panes. The phrase 'Discover active terminal sessions' reinforces 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('Discover active terminal sessions') suggesting this is for finding currently running tmux sessions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like tmux_session_info (which appears to provide detailed info about a specific session) or other session management tools. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 successfully communicates key behavioral traits: the tool generates UUIDs (implying read-only, non-destructive operation), supports two version types with different generation methods, and has a batch capability with a maximum limit. However, it doesn't mention performance characteristics, error conditions, or what happens when invalid parameters 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two tightly focused sentences that each earn their place: the first specifies what's generated and the version options, the second states the batch capability and limit. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (UUID generation) is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a relatively simple generation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It covers the core functionality, version options, and batch limitations. The main gap is the lack of information about return format or structure, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. However, given the tool's straightforward nature, the description is reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters with descriptions and enum values. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the batch capability ('up to 100 at once') which relates to the count parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('UUID'), specifies the versions supported ('v1 time-based or v4 random'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like gen_hash, gen_password, and gen_random by focusing exclusively on UUID generation. It provides precise scope information that differentiates it from other generation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the version options and batch capability ('up to 100 at once'), suggesting when to choose v1 vs v4 and when batch generation is appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gen_random or provide clear exclusion criteria for other UUID-related operations that might be needed.
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 indicates this is a read-only check operation ('Check how many commits'), which is appropriate. However, it doesn't specify what happens if the branch doesn't exist, whether it requires network access to check upstream, or what format the results will be in (just counts or detailed commit info).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just two sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides practical usage context. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, but doesn't describe the return format or potential error conditions. Given the tool's relative simplicity, this is minimally viable but leaves some behavioral questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 'branch' well-documented as 'Branch name (default: current branch).' The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and complete schema coverage, this is acceptable. The baseline would be 3, but with 0 required parameters and clear default behavior, it earns a 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check how many commits a branch is ahead/behind its upstream.' It specifies the verb ('check') and resource ('branch'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_branch_list' or 'git_current_branch' beyond its unique functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'Useful before push/pull.' This gives practical guidance about the tool's intended timing, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many git-related siblings.
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 core behavior (showing line modifications) and optional line range, but lacks details on output format, error handling, permissions needed, or whether it reads from local or remote repositories. This is adequate for a read-only tool but misses richer context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds optional functionality. It is front-loaded and 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.
Completeness3/5Given 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 is minimally complete for a read-only tool with full schema coverage. It covers purpose and optional parameters but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration context (e.g., Git repository state). Adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (file, startLine, endLine). The description adds marginal value by implying the line range is optional and for focusing on 'specific code,' but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Show who last modified each line of a file') and identifies the resource ('a file'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_diff, git_file_history, and git_show by focusing on line-by-line authorship attribution rather than changes, history, or content display.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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 ('to focus on specific code') by mentioning the optional line range. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., git_diff for changes, git_file_history for file-level history).
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 tool is a read operation ('Get'), which is straightforward, but doesn't disclose potential behavioral traits such as error conditions (e.g., if not in a git repository), performance characteristics, or output format. The description adds basic context but lacks depth 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose clearly, and the second adds practical context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse and understand without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be more robust. It covers the basic purpose and a usage hint, but without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., string format) or error handling, leaving gaps in contextual information for a tool that might fail in non-git contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage with an empty object. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, so it naturally meets the baseline. No additional semantics are required, making this score appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('name of the currently checked out branch'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_branch_list (which lists all branches) by focusing specifically on the current branch, 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Useful for automation scripts,' which implies a context for when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like git_branch_list or git_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage guidance somewhat implicit.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it's read-only (indicating no mutations), has a safety limit (100 rows by default), and executes SELECT queries. However, it lacks details on error handling, response format, or timeouts, which would be helpful for a database tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a critical safety note in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the read-only nature, safety limit, and query type, but could benefit from mentioning the return format or error scenarios. However, it adequately supports tool selection and invocation for a database query operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'limit' parameter's default (100 rows) and the query type (SELECT), but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage examples. 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('read-only SELECT query'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like db_connect, db_explain, db_schema, and db_tables. It explicitly mentions the read-only nature, which differentiates it from potential write operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by stating 'read-only SELECT query' and 'Limited to 100 rows by default for safety,' suggesting it's for safe data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like db_explain or db_schema, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing a database connection.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the safety aspect ('safely'), file size limit ('max 100KB'), and output limitation via 'maxLines'. However, it does not cover error handling, permissions, or return format details, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and key constraints in the first sentence, followed by a brief usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given 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 does well by covering safety, size limits, and a parameter tip. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of read content) and error cases, which would enhance completeness for a read operation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'maxLines' ('to limit output'), but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema offers for 'path' or 'encoding'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('text file contents'), specifies the safety constraint ('safely'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the file size limit ('max 100KB'). It directly addresses what the tool does without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for reading text files with size and line limits, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'file_search' or 'file_tree'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit exclusions or sibling comparisons.
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 indicates this is a read operation (listing) and specifies what information is returned, but doesn't mention potential limitations like session existence requirements, permission needs, or error behavior. The description adds basic context about what gets listed but lacks depth on 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two clear, focused sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second specifies the output format. The description is appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and what information it returns. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail about return format structure or potential error conditions, though the simplicity of the tool makes the current description reasonably complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the optional 'session' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with only one optional parameter and complete schema documentation, the baseline is appropriately high. The description's mention of 'lists all if omitted' aligns with but doesn't extend the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List windows'), target resource ('in a tmux session'), and output details ('Shows window index, name, and active status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tmux_list_sessions and tmux_list_panes by focusing specifically on windows within sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing tmux windows, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tmux_list_sessions or tmux_session_info. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases beyond the basic functionality.
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 mentions the default behavior ('default shows running') and the effect of the 'all' parameter, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, error handling, or permissions required, leaving behavioral gaps for a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides key usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, with every sentence earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given 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 is minimal but covers the core purpose and a key parameter. For a simple read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, it is adequate but lacks details on output structure or error conditions, which could enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 fully. The description adds value by explaining the semantic effect of 'all=true' ('for stopped containers'), but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Docker containers') with specific attributes ('with status and ports'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools like docker_inspect or docker_logs by focusing on listing rather than detailed inspection or log retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use all=true for stopped containers,' indicating when to use this parameter. It implicitly distinguishes from compose_ps by specifying Docker containers (not Compose), though no explicit alternatives are named.
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 implies a read-only operation ('List') and hints at the purpose ('Find saved work'), but lacks details on behavioral aspects such as output format, ordering, or potential errors (e.g., if no stashes exist). It does not contradict annotations, but offers limited behavioral insight 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and output, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and usage, but lacks details on output structure or edge cases, which could help an agent interpret results. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose instead. A baseline of 4 is given since it avoids redundancy and correctly handles the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all stashed changes') and resource ('stashed changes'), specifying the output includes descriptions. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_status or git_diff by focusing exclusively on stashed changes, not general repository state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage ('Find saved work to restore later'), indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related tasks like git_stash_apply or git_stash_pop, which might be relevant for a complete agent.
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 shows tracking info and ahead/behind status, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention whether the output is paginated, sorted, or formatted, or if there are any rate limits or permissions required. For a read-only tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List all local and remote branches') and adds clarifying details ('with tracking info. Shows which branches are ahead/behind remotes.'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is complete enough for a basic listing tool. It explains what branches are included and what additional info is provided. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structured data vs. plain text).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output behavior. This meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all local and remote branches') with specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'git_current_branch' (which shows only current) and 'github_list_branches' (which likely shows GitHub remote branches only) by specifying both local and remote branches with tracking info.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'tracking info' and 'ahead/behind remotes,' which suggests this tool is for checking branch synchronization status. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'git_branch_ahead_behind' (which might focus on specific branches) or 'git_remote_list' (which lists remotes, not branches).
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 discloses the core behavior (showing unstaged changes) and optional file filtering, but doesn't mention output format, line-by-line diff details, or potential error conditions. For a read-only diff tool, this is adequate but lacks richer behavioral context like how conflicts or binary files 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the optional parameter. It's front-loaded with the main functionality and appropriately sized for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and the parameter's purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the diff format or typical output structure to fully guide the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with one optional parameter. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the 'file' parameter is for 'see[ing] changes for only that file,' which clarifies the filtering semantics beyond the schema's generic 'Specific file to diff' description. This compensates well for the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Show unstaged changes') and resource ('working directory'), with precise scope ('unstaged' vs 'staged'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like git_staged_diff (for staged changes) and git_status (which shows status summary rather than detailed diff).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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 (to see unstaged changes) and includes an optional parameter for file-specific diffs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like git_staged_diff for comparison, though the 'unstaged' qualifier implies the distinction.
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 clearly indicates this is a read-only operation (showing changes, not modifying them) and implies it's safe for review purposes. However, it doesn't mention output format, potential limitations, or error conditions that might be relevant for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of information about output format or structure, which would be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect from this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Show changes staged for commit') and references the exact git command ('git diff --cached'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like git_diff (which shows unstaged changes) and git_status (which shows overall status) by focusing exclusively on staged changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does 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 ('Review before committing'), indicating it's meant for pre-commit verification. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like git_diff for unstaged changes or git_status for a broader view, though these can be inferred 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.
- 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 communicates critical behavioral traits: this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Terminate'), has a safety confirmation requirement, and specifies a default signal. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens after termination, but covers the essential safety aspect well.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with three clear, front-loaded statements that each earn their place: states the action, specifies the safety requirement, and indicates the default behavior. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by emphasizing the safety confirmation requirement and default signal. It could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects or error cases, but given the clear schema and focused purpose, it provides adequate context for responsible use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the confirm requirement and default signal, both of which are already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Terminate') and target resource ('a process by PID'), making the purpose immediately evident. It distinguishes this tool from sibling process tools (like process_list, process_info, process_search) by specifying it's for termination rather than querying or monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Terminate a process') and includes a safety requirement ('Requires confirm=true for safety'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling process 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and describes what information will be shown, but doesn't mention potential limitations like whether it shows only the current directory or entire repository, or how it handles submodules. It provides basic behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of just two sentences that efficiently convey both the tool's purpose and its primary use case. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't describe the output format or structure, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The description is mostly complete but could benefit from output details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage. This earns a baseline 4 for parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get working tree status') and resource ('modified, staged, and untracked files'), distinguishing it from sibling git tools like git_diff or git_staged_diff which show different aspects of changes. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does 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 before committing to review changes.' This provides clear guidance on the appropriate context for invoking git_status versus other git operations, making it immediately actionable for an AI agent.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a detection/read operation (not destructive) and specifies the context (working tree during merge/rebase). However, it doesn't describe output format or what constitutes a 'conflict' detection result.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There is zero wasted language or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent purpose clarity and usage guidance. The main gap is the lack of information about what the output looks like (e.g., list of conflicted files, conflict details), which would be helpful given no output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('detect files with merge conflicts') and resource ('in working tree'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like git_status or git_diff by focusing specifically on conflict detection rather than general status or differences.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides usage context with 'Use during merge/rebase to find issues,' giving clear guidance on when this tool should be employed. This distinguishes it from other git tools that might be used in different development workflows.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/ShunsukeHayashi/miyabi-mcp-bundle'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server