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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read or mutation operation, any side effects, or required permissions. The 'Required' claim contradicts the schema.

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

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

The description is very short and mostly contains the HTTP method and path. It is concise but at the expense of clarity and completeness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, supported groupings, or behavior differences from sibling tools.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with minimal descriptions. The description lists some parameters but incorrectly marks them as required, and adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states 'Group objects by stuff' which is extremely vague and does not specify what kind of objects or grouping. It also lists required parameters that are actually optional according to the schema, adding confusion.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aggregation_search_group. The description does not provide any context for selection.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits but only provides the HTTP method and endpoint. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, data mutation, or any side effects.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loads the endpoint, but it is informal and incomplete. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, making it minimally acceptable.

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

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

Given 16 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no context. It does not explain the grouping behavior, response format, or parameter interactions, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description incorrectly claims that objectName, q, from, size, and group are required (schema shows all optional). It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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

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

The description states 'Group objects by stuff' and lists required parameters, but it's vague about what exactly is being grouped and what the grouping entails. It fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'aggregation_group'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aggregation_group' or other search tools. No context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

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

The description 'Requires a JSON request body' contradicts the input schema where the body parameter is not required (default null). This inconsistency can mislead an agent. Additionally, no behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the action (disable), such as whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or if it triggers side effects.

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

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

The description is very short (two sentences), but the first sentence repeats the endpoint and method, which is redundant given the tool name and context. The second sentence delivers the core purpose. It is concise but could be restructured to front-load the action and omit the HTTP verb line.

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

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

The description lacks completeness for a delete operation: it does not state what happens after disabling (e.g., return value, confirmation), whether the operation is reversible, or what identifier to pass. With no output schema and no annotations, the agent needs more context to use this tool correctly.

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

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

The only parameter 'body' has a generic description 'JSON request body' in the schema, and the tool description adds no further meaning. It does not specify what fields the body should contain (e.g., an identifier for the automation instance). With 100% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value, leaving agents to guess the required structure.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Disable instance of the object' which conveys a delete operation for an automation. The method DELETE and sibling tool names (automation_insert, automation_update) reinforce that this is a CRUD delete. However, the term 'Disable' is ambiguous (soft delete vs hard delete), and the description does not explicitly mention 'automation'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like automation_update or automation_search. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the automation ID in the body, or when not to use it (e.g., if the automation is already disabled).

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Requires a JSON request body', which is already in the schema. No information on side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or success/failure behavior is given.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It includes the HTTP method and path, which may be helpful. There is no unnecessary information.

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

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error handling, or what specifically gets inserted. For a mutation tool, more context is needed.

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

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

The description repeats the schema's parameter description ('JSON request body') without adding any extra meaning, such as expected structure, constraints, examples, or optional fields. With schema coverage at 100%, the description adds no value.

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

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

The description states 'insert instance of the object', indicating a verb (insert) and resource (object), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like automation_delete or automation_update. However, 'the object' is somewhat vague without specifying the automation context.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like automation_update or automation_delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention pagination behavior, default size, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The minimal description does not compensate for the absence of annotations.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it includes the HTTP method and path which is somewhat redundant. Overall it is concise but could be more structured by summarizing key capabilities.

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

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

Given the 16 optional parameters, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain pagination, default values, or the response structure, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 16 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description clearly states it returns a list of automations and includes the HTTP method and path. However, given multiple sibling listing tools (automations_automations_1, etc.), it does not differentiate itself, leaving ambiguity about which specific list variant this is.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like automation_search or automation_search_by_fields. The description simply states it returns a list, with no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Inserts automation' without disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or any constraints beyond requiring a body.

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

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

The description is overly terse at one sentence. While it front-loads the method and endpoint, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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

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

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain expected body fields or response. It fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to use effectively.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'JSON request body'. Baseline 3 applies as no additional semantics provided.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool inserts an automation via POST. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'automation_insert' or 'automations_automations_2', which also likely insert automations.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is 'Requires a JSON request body', which is a requirement, not a usage context.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states it returns an automation. It does not disclose error behavior, permissions, side effects, or any constraints beyond requiring an ID.

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

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

Extremely concise and front-loaded. It provides the essential information in a single line, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise.

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

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

For a simple retrieval by ID with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the minimum. But given the many similar sibling tools, more context would help the agent select the correct tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond stating that 'id' is required, which is already in the schema.

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

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

Clearly states it returns an automation by ID using a GET endpoint. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like automations_automations or automations_automations_1, which may have similar purposes.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply implies usage when an ID is available, but with many similar sibling tools, more explicit context is needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions required fields (id, JSON body) but discloses no behavioral traits such as partial vs full update, error handling, permissions, or side effects. The agent lacks critical information for safe use.

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

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

The description is very concise at 12 words, front-loaded with the tool category 'automations'. It includes essential info (HTTP method, path, action) without fluff. Could be slightly better structured but effective for quick scanning.

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

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

Given the complexity (2 params, no output schema) and a large set of sibling tools, the description lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter specifics needed to fully understand the tool's role. It is inadequate for an AI agent to select and invoke correctly among many automation tools.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'Required: id' and 'Requires a JSON request body', but the schema defines body as optional (anyOf: {} or null, default null). This creates a minor inconsistency but still adds some context. No additional parameter details beyond schema.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Updates automation' and provides the HTTP method PUT and path pattern, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like automation_delete or automation_insert.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for insert, delete, search, and state updates, but the description offers no context about when an update is appropriate or what the differences are.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Returns events' without disclosing any behavioral traits like idempotency, permissions, or side effects. The required parameters claim is also unsubstantiated by the schema.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded, but it omits essential information such as return format and usage context, making it insufficiently concise.

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

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

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description fails to provide a complete picture. It does not describe the response structure, pagination, or differentiate from similar search tools.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description incorrectly claims 'Required: q, from, size' while the schema lists no required parameters. This misleading statement adds confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description clearly indicates the tool is for searching automation events, specifying the HTTP method and path. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like automation_search_all or automation_search_by_fields.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as automation_search_all or automation_search_by_fields. The description provides no context for selection.

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

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or idempotency. It only says 'Returns events' without further detail.

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

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

The description is very short but includes the endpoint and a note on required parameters (which is misleading). It could be more structured and informative.

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

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

Given the 7 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output format, pagination, or parameter usage.

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

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

The schema descriptions are trivial (e.g., 'query param q (str)'), and the description adds no meaningful semantics. It mentions q, from, size as required, but the schema shows them as optional with defaults, creating a contradiction.

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

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

The description states it returns events via POST /automation/searchAll, but it does not specify what kind of events or how it differs from sibling tools like automation_search or automation_search_by_fields. The purpose is vaguely clear but not precise.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only gives HTTP method and required params. No disclosure of side effects, auth, rate limits, or error behavior.

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

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

Very short, but includes redundant HTTP method. Could be better organized to frontload the primary purpose.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers almost nothing. Omits most parameters and response behavior.

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

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

The description claims from, size, q are required, but the schema defines them as optional. This contradiction hurts reliability. Minimal value added beyond schema.

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

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

The description only states 'Get object by connection' which is vague and does not specify what object (automation?) or connection. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like automation_search.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like automation_search or automation_search_all. The description is purely operational.

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

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The description adds minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of one sentence that front-loads the method and path. However, it could benefit from slightly more detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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

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

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the JSON body should contain, which is critical for correct invocation.

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

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description of the 'body' parameter as 'JSON request body' is vague. The description does not clarify the expected structure or allowed values, adding little beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool updates automation state, specifying the resource and action. However, it lacks detail on what state values are possible, which could clarify its purpose further.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like automation_update or automation_search. The description does not indicate prerequisites or alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description says 'Disable' but the HTTP method is DELETE, which is contradictory and unclear. No information about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. The description fails to disclose essential 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.

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

The description is short but unclear and poorly structured. It repeats the tool name and HTTP method, which are already in the title. The sentence tries to convey too much in a single line without proper separation of concerns.

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

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

No output schema is present. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how deletions are handled (soft vs hard), or any limits (e.g., batch size). For a 'delete many' operation, this is critically incomplete.

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

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

The schema has 100% coverage for two parameters (q and body). The description adds minimal value by stating 'Required: q' and 'Requires a JSON request body', but this contradicts the schema where both parameters are optional (default null). This creates confusion rather than clarity.

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

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

The description states 'Disable instance of the objects' which is ambiguous—does it disable or delete? The HTTP method DELETE suggests deletion, but the word 'disable' is confusing. There is no differentiation from sibling delete tools like 'endpoint_delete_many' or 'user_invitation_delete'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions provided. The description only states 'Required: q' but the schema shows q is optional, adding confusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only repeats that a JSON body is required; it does not disclose success behaviors, error conditions, permissions, or side effects. For an insert operation, critical context is missing.

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

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

The description is concise (one sentence) but lacks structure. It includes redundant HTTP method and path information. While not overly verbose, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the abundance of sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It provides no context about the response, error handling, or typical use cases, which would help an agent choose correctly among similar tools.

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

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema: both say 'JSON request body'. Schema coverage is 100% but the description merely echoes the schema, providing no additional semantics about the body's structure or required fields.

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

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

The description states 'Insert instance of the object' which is clear but vague; it relies on the tool name to specify the object type. It does not distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'automation_insert' or 'task_template_insert', making it hard for an agent to differentiate.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'automation_insert' or 'task_template_insert'. The only additional information is 'Requires a JSON request body', which is obvious from the input schema.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description only mentions 'Requires a JSON request body' without specifying required fields, error behavior, or idempotency. Insufficient transparency for a mutation operation.

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

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

The description is short but contains redundancy (name and endpoint repeated) and a misspelling ('Inserte'). It is not well-structured or front-loaded.

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

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

For a many-insert tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about response format, error codes, or how to provide multiple objects.

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

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

Only one parameter 'body' with schema description 'JSON request body'. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate. Description adds no additional meaning or details about the body structure.

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

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

The description states 'Inserte instance of the object' which is a misspelling and implies singular insertion, conflicting with the tool name '_insert_many'. The purpose is vague and not differentiated from sibling tools like 'automation_task_templates_insert' (singular).

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the singular insert or other alternatives. Missing context such as batch size limits or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations exist. The description only mentions 'Update' and 'Requires a JSON request body', but does not disclose idempotency, error responses, permissions, or side effects. This leaves the agent uninformed about 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.

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

The description is very short, but includes unnecessary technical details like the HTTP method and endpoint path. It is not well-structured for an AI agent, lacking front-loaded clarity.

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

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

No output schema, no annotations, and a sparse description. The tool concept (update) is broad, and the description fails to cover what specific fields can be updated, constraints, or potential impact on the system.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'body' parameter described as 'JSON request body'. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, merely restating that a JSON body is required. No benefit over structured data.

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

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

The description states 'Update instance of the object' which identifies a verb and resource, but fails to specify which object type (e.g., automation). Among siblings like 'automations_update_state' and 'automation_delete', the lack of specificity reduces clarity.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'automations_update_state' or 'task_template_update'. No prerequisites or context for invocation are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description only says 'Get current date' without specifying timezone, format, or caching behavior. This leaves the agent guessing about important behavioral details for a date retrieval tool.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence. No extraneous information is present, and it is front-loaded.

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

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

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be improved by noting the expected output format or timezone. It is complete enough for a simple use case.

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

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

There are no parameters (0), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none. Baseline score of 4 applies.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Get current date' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings, as none of the sibling tools appear to retrieve the current date.

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

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

The description implies usage through its purpose, but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. Since the tool is simple, further guidance is minimal but absent.

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

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

The description only says 'Returns events' with no details on pagination, authentication, or side effects. It also inaccurately marks q, from, size as required (schema shows optional), which could mislead. No annotations to compensate.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with endpoint, but it lacks essential information. It is not 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.

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and 7 parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return format, filtering behavior, or the purpose of parameters like group, sort, body, includeFields.

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

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

Schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description incorrectly states that q, from, size are required, while schema shows optional. This adds confusion and reduces value.

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

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

The description states the tool returns events and gives the endpoint URL. However, 'events' is vague and does not differentiate from sibling search tools for other entities. The meaning is partially clear but lacks specificity.

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

Does the 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 endpoint_search or automation_search. No prerequisites or context for usage are provided.

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

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, pagination behavior, or side effects. It only mentions the HTTP method and path.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, concise but unclear. Includes unnecessary jargon ('Get object by connection') that reduces clarity.

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

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

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return values or the purpose of the search. Incomplete for effective tool selection.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal ('query param ...'). The description adds only a misleading claim about required parameters, no meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states it is a search operation to 'get object by connection,' but does not define what an attribute or connection is. It vaguely indicates a search without differentiating from sibling search tools like 'endpoint_attributes_search' or 'endpoint_search.'

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

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

It claims 'Required: from, size, q' but the schema lists no required parameters. No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Misleading about required fields.

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

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

The description says it disables a tool and requires a JSON request body, but it doesn't disclose side effects, requirements, or what happens upon execution. There is a contradiction with the schema: the description claims body is required, but the schema has default null, making it optional. No annotations exist to mitigate this.

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

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

The description is very concise, but it includes unnecessary REST-like prefix text that may confuse. It is short but sacrifices clarity; it could be better structured with a clear purpose and parameter hint.

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

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

Given no output schema and a single parameter with a vague description, the tool is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, side effects, or how to specify the target endpoint, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

The only parameter 'body' is described as 'JSON request body', which is a tautology from the schema. The description adds no semantic value about what the body should contain (e.g., an endpoint identifier), leaving the agent without meaningful guidance.

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

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

The description states it disables an instance of the object and specifies the HTTP method, but the term 'Disable' is ambiguous and doesn't match the tool name 'delete'. It lacks specificity about what object is being acted upon, making it only moderately clear.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like endpoint_delete_many. No prerequisites or context for appropriate usage are provided, leaving the agent to infer without support.

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

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

The description contradicts the schema by stating 'Required: q' while the schema marks q as optional with a default of null. No annotations are provided. The term 'Disable instance' is ambiguous and does not clarify if the action is destructive or reversible.

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

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

The description is short but includes redundant elements like 'endpoint ·' and repeats information from the schema. It is not efficiently structured for clarity.

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

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

Given no annotations or output schema, the description lacks critical details: what 'q' represents, how to specify which instances to delete, the response format, and whether 'disable' means soft or hard delete.

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

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

The schema already describes both parameters (q as a string query param, body as JSON). The description adds 'Required: q' which is misleading. No additional meaning is provided beyond the schema, and the contradiction reduces reliability.

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

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

The description states the HTTP method and path, and vaguely indicates disabling instances, but does not clearly say it deletes multiple endpoints. It also fails to differentiate from the sibling 'endpoint_delete' tool.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Required: q' but does not explain what q is or provide context for appropriate usage.

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

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

The description discloses paging behavior (size <= 500, from <= 10000) and mentions sort for deeper paging. However, it makes a claim that q, from, size are required, contradicting the schema where all parameters are optional (nullable). No information about authorization, rate limits, or side effects is provided, and annotations are absent.

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

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

The description is very concise, consisting of just two sentences that convey the core functionality, filter format, and paging constraints. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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

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

The description covers the main filtering and paging aspects but lacks details on other parameters (group, includeFields, body) and the response structure. Since there is no output schema, more context about return values would be beneficial for complete understanding.

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

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

The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the RSQL filter syntax with an example and specifying constraints on size and from. It also hints at using sort and seek paging, which aids understanding of the 'sort' parameter even though schema coverage is 100%.

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

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

The description clearly states it is for searching endpoints/assets, provides an example RSQL query, and mentions paging limits. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like endpoint_attributes_search, which also search endpoints but on different attributes.

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

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

The description explicitly states 'Required: q, from, size' and advises using sort + seek paging beyond 10000, giving some usage guidance. However, it does not explain when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

The description lists allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which adds behavioral detail. However, it incorrectly claims that q and searchQuerys are required (contradicting the schema), which reduces trust and transparency. With no annotations, the burden is on the description, and this contradiction is a significant flaw.

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

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

The description includes a long list of allowed values, which could be better placed in the schema. The core part is concise but vague ('stuff'). The structure is messy, mixing endpoint, purpose, and parameter notes without clear organization.

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

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

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain the return value. It does not. The description also fails to clarify the contradiction about required parameters, leaving the agent without complete context for invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which is useful. But it mislabels q and searchQuerys as required, which is misleading and detracts from semantic clarity.

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

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

The description vaguely states 'Count objects by stuff,' which is uninformative. It identifies it as a count operation but fails to specify what objects or criteria, making it difficult for an agent to understand the tool's exact purpose.

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

Does the description explain 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 endpoint_vulnerability_count_1. The description does not mention any contextual constraints or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. It only lists allowed values for one parameter.

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

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

The description is a long run-on sentence with a massive enumeration, making it hard to parse. Important information is buried, and the structure is poor.

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

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

Without an output schema and with many sibling tools, the description fails to explain what the output represents, how to use filters, or the purpose of the 'body' parameter. It is incomplete for effective use.

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

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

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds a list of allowed values for 'analyticsEventAction'. However, it incorrectly states 'Required: q' despite the schema showing 'q' as optional with a default of null. This contradiction reduces reliability.

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

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

The description states 'Count objects by stuff', which is vague and doesn't specify that it counts endpoint vulnerabilities. The tool name suggests endpoint vulnerability, but the description fails to confirm this. It lacks a specific verb and resource.

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

Does the description explain 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 'endpoint_vulnerability_count'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It discloses the HTTP method and return type but does not mention rate limits, authentication, side effects, or response format. The list of allowed values adds some transparency, but overall lacks depth for a POST endpoint.

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

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

The description is a single string that front-loads the purpose, method, and path, then lists required parameters and allowed values. The large list of allowed values is necessary but makes it lengthy. It is efficient and packs essential info, though could be better structured (e.g., bullet points).

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

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

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, required params, and allowed values. It does not explain the body parameter, sorting, pagination, or response format. Adequate for basic use but lacks completeness for a complex filtering tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with basic descriptions. The description adds value by listing required parameters (q, from, size) and enumerating all allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which is not in the schema. However, note the schema marks these as optional (default null), so the 'required' claim may be inconsistent.

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

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

The description clearly states that the tool returns events, provides the HTTP method POST and path /endpointVulnerability/filter, and lists required parameters and allowed values for analyticsEventAction. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like endpoint_vulnerability_count.

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

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

The description mentions required parameters (q, from, size) and allowed values for analyticsEventAction, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like endpoint_vulnerability_count. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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

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

Without annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the HTTP method and required params, lacking details on side effects, authentication, pagination limits, or return format.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loads the key information. No wasted words, but it omits necessary context for effective use.

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

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

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what 'by connection' means, pagination behavior, or how the tool fits with siblings.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that 'from, size, q' are required, which is useful but conflicts with schema defaults (all nullable). This adds marginal value.

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

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

The description states 'Get object by connection' and lists required parameters, clearly indicating it searches external references by fields. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'search_by_objects' despite the name hinting at the difference.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Only lists required parameters without context on 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.

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

No annotations provided. The description claims required parameters (from, size, q) and required JSON body, but the schema lists all parameters as optional, creating a contradiction. The behavior is not clearly disclosed beyond being a search.

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

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

Short description but includes redundant tool name and path. Could be more concise and structured. The list of required params is helpful but contradicts schema.

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

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

Given 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of the JSON body, the concept of 'connection', return values, pagination, and error handling.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'query param enabled (bool)'). The description adds value by highlighting required params, but this contradicts the schema. It does not explain the meaning of 'q' or 'enabled', only adding confusion.

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

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

The description states it is a search for objects by connection using POST, and lists required parameters. It distinguishes from the sibling 'external_reference_external_references_search_by_fields' by specifying 'by connection', but does not clarify what 'connection' means.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like the sibling search by fields. It mentions required parameters but lacks context for appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, destructive, rate-limited, or permission-restricted. The description only states 'Count objects' without any behavioral context beyond the schema.

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

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

The description is a single cluttered block mixing endpoint path, vague purpose, and a long list of allowed values. It is not concise; the endpoint path is extraneous and the list should be separated. The structure does not front-load essential information for the agent.

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

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

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what the count represents, how parameters affect results, and any constraints. It fails to provide a complete picture, omitting details like return format, behavior with missing parameters, and relationship to sibling tools.

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

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

Although schema description coverage is 100% with minimal descriptions, the description adds a long list of allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which is missing from the schema. However, it contains a contradiction (claiming required parameters where schema shows none) and the allowed values list is poorly formatted. The added value is marginal and partly misleading.

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

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

The description 'Count objects by stuff' is vague and does not specify what kind of objects are counted. The tool name suggests incident events, but the description fails to clearly state that it counts incident events based on query parameters. The inclusion of the endpoint path adds some context but the purpose remains unclear.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling count tools like incident_event_count_1. There is no differentiation or context about prerequisites or preferred use cases. The misleading claim about required parameters (q, searchQuerys) contradicts the schema and adds confusion.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only says 'Count objects by stuff' and lists allowed values, but no info on side effects, auth needs, or read-only nature.

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

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

Description is a single vague sentence followed by a huge list of allowed values. Not concise, poorly structured, and hard to parse.

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

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

Missing key context: what does 'stuff' mean? What does the body parameter do? Does not explain how to use the tool effectively or how it differs from many similar counting siblings.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with basic info. Description adds allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which is helpful, but also incorrectly claims q is required, reducing clarity.

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

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

Description says 'Count objects by stuff,' which is vague and does not clearly state the tool's purpose. It does not differentiate from sibling tool 'incident_event_count' and other counting tools.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'incident_event_count' or 'incident_event_filter'. Misstates 'Required: q' but q is optional in schema.

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

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

No annotations provided, and description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only discloses the endpoint and allowed values.

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

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

Description is a single long, run-on sentence with a very long list of allowed values, making it hard to parse. Not concise or well-structured.

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

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

Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and complex allowed values, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, pagination, or how to use the body parameter. Also contradicts schema on required fields.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds marginal value beyond schema. It does list allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which is helpful, but other parameters are not elaborated.

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

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

Description clearly states it returns events via POST /incidentEvent/filter and lists allowed values for analyticsEventAction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like incident_event_count.

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

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

Description mentions required parameters q, from, size and gives allowed values, but does not provide when-to-use context or alternatives among sibling tools.

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

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

The description claims 'Required: from, size, q' but the schema shows all parameters are optional, creating a contradiction. No disclosure of search behavior, pagination, or side effects is provided.

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

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

The description is extremely short, but it lacks substance and clarity. It is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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

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

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, behavior, or correct usage.

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

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

Although the schema has 100% coverage, the description misinforms by labeling parameters as required when they are not, and adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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

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

The description 'Get object by connection' is vague and does not clarify what an operating system family is or what 'by connection' means. It mentions the endpoint and required params, but does not distinguish it from other search tools.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other search_by_fields tools. The description lacks context on preferred use cases or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool 'disables' an instance and requires a JSON request body, but fails to explain effects (e.g., irreversible deletion, impact on related data), permissions needed, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a potentially destructive operation.

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

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

The description is short (two sentences) but the first sentence redundantly repeats the tool name and HTTP method. 'Disable instance of the object' is concise but vague. The structure is acceptable but could be improved with front-loaded, specific information.

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

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

Given the tool complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description lacks crucial context: the required identifier in the body, whether it's a soft or hard delete, and how it differs from related tools like organization_endpoint_group_update. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without external knowledge.

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

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

There is one parameter 'body' with 100% schema description coverage (described as 'JSON request body'). The tool description repeats that it requires a JSON request body but adds no further meaning about required fields or structure. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the parameter description is minimal.

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

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

The description states 'Disable instance of the object' and includes the HTTP method DELETE, indicating a deletion operation. However, the use of 'Disable' rather than 'Delete' creates ambiguity about whether the action is reversible or permanent. The tool name also clearly indicates deletion, so purpose is partially clear but not precise.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like organization_endpoint_group_update or other sibling tools. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate usage.

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

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

The description says 'Requires a JSON request body,' but the input schema lists body as optional (anyOf: [{}, null]), which is contradictory and misleading. No other behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects) are disclosed, and there are no annotations to help.

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

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

The description is concise at one sentence, but it includes redundant path information that is not necessary for the agent. It is front-loaded with the action, but could be streamlined.

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

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., created object or ID). It only states the action and requirement, leaving the agent to infer the response, which is insufficient for a creation operation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with the description 'JSON request body' already provided. The tool description adds no further meaning beyond this, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states it inserts an instance of the object, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not specify what fields or constraints apply, and the phrasing 'insert instance of the object' is somewhat tautological.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like organization_endpoint_group_search, delete, or update. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Returns events' without detailing side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. The POST method implies potential mutation but this is not clarified.

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

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

The description is very short, but it lacks clarity and includes incorrect information. Conciseness alone is insufficient without accuracy.

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

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to explain pagination, response structure, or the distinction from many sibling search tools. The tool appears to be a search but 'events' is undefined.

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

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

Schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'query param q (str)') and the description adds no meaningful context. It misstates requiredness, contradicting the schema where all parameters have default null. Baseline 3 for 100% coverage is reduced due to misleading information.

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

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

The description says 'Returns events' but the tool name indicates searching for endpoint groups, creating ambiguity. It also incorrectly lists q, from, size as required when schema shows they are optional.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'organization_endpoint_group_search_by_fields' or 'endpoint_search'. The description does not specify use cases or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It incorrectly states 'Required: from, size, q' while the schema shows all parameters are optional with defaults. This contradiction could mislead the agent. The description does not mention mutation, permission requirements, or pagination behavior beyond listing params.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, fitting in one line. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity. It includes the HTTP method and path which is useful but not essential. Every sentence is short, but the information is incomplete.

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

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

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It only covers three parameters and gives no information about the return format, error handling, or typical use cases. The tool is search-related but the description does not clarify filtering, sorting, or result size.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description only mentions three parameters (from_, size, q) without adding any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The other six parameters are ignored entirely.

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

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

The description says 'Get object by connection' which is vague and does not clearly indicate that this is a search-by-fields operation. It repeats the endpoint path but lacks specificity about what object type or connection means. Compared to sibling search tools, this does not differentiate its purpose.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like organization_endpoint_group_search or endpoint_search. The description only lists the endpoint and claims some params are required, but does not explain scenarios or restrictions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Update instance' and 'Requires a JSON request body', omitting idempotency, error handling, side effects, or required permissions.

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

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

The description is short (one sentence) but includes redundant info like the tool name and path. It could be more structured and omit the prefix.

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

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

For an update tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description lacks crucial details such as required body fields, expected object IDs, and response behavior. It is incomplete for reliable agent usage.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'body' parameter. The description repeats 'JSON request body' from the schema, adding no additional meaning about expected fields or structure.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Update instance of the object' with the HTTP method and path, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete or insert. However, it lacks specifics on what fields can be updated, 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.

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., organization_endpoint_group_insert). No prerequisites, conditions, or examples are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or requirements beyond listing allowed values. Simply stating 'Count objects' 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.

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

The description is verbose and unstructured: it repeats the tool name and path, uses informal language ('stuff'), and includes an extremely long, unformatted list of allowed values. It fails to be concise or well-organized.

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

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

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, usage patterns, and param interactions. It only mentions required params and allowed values, leaving critical gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited value by listing allowed values for analyticsEventAction, but it does not explain the purpose of the parameters beyond their names. The schema descriptions are minimal, but the description still adds some semantic context.

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

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

The description says 'Count objects by stuff,' which is vague and does not clearly state that it counts organization endpoint patch packages. The tool name provides some clarity, but the description fails to specify the resource being counted.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., organization_endpoint_patch_patch_packages_filter or other count tools). The description lacks 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.

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, or rate limits. It only states it counts, but does not describe response format or safety.

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

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

The description is a single run-on sentence with a long inline list of values, making it hard to parse. It is not front-loaded effectively and lacks structure.

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

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

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the count returns, but it does not. The input parameters are partially described, and the vague 'by stuff' does not convey the full context needed for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%. The description adds a list of allowed values for analyticsEventAction beyond the schema, but contradicts itself by claiming 'Required: q' while the schema shows q as optional. It does not explain the 'body' parameter.

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

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

The description states it counts objects for organization endpoint patch patch packages, but is vague with 'Count objects by stuff'. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like organization_endpoint_patch_patch_packages_count or filter endpoints.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar tools, but no comparison or context is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided. The description claims 'Required: q, from, size' but the schema marks these as optional with null defaults, causing a contradiction. No mention of other behaviors like rate limits, idempotency, or side effects.

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

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

The description is a single, extremely long sentence containing a massive enumeration of values. It is not front-loaded with purpose; it starts with the endpoint path. No structure or brevity.

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

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

Given no output schema and 10 parameters, the description fails to explain the return structure or how the filter operates. It does not differentiate from many sibling filter tools, leaving the agent to guess how to use it effectively.

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

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

Schema has 100% coverage with basic type descriptions. The description adds a list of allowed values for analyticsEventAction, which is helpful, but misstates that q, from, size are required (contradicting schema). This misleading information harms clarity more than helps.

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

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

The description states 'Returns events' but does not specify what kind of events or the tool's specific role among siblings. The name suggests filtering patch package events, but the description lists many event types without contextualizing the tool's primary function. It fails to distinguish from siblings like incident_event_filter or task_endpoints_event_filter.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like other filter tools (e.g., incident_event_filter). No when-not-to-use scenarios or context provided.

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

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Returns events' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any authentication needs, or pagination behavior (although from_ and size parameters are present). The claim that q, from, size are required contradicts the input schema (which lists no required parameters), further confusing the agent.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but repetitive (includes the full tool name and endpoint). It could be more concise by removing redundancy and focusing on unique aspects.

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

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

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers three parameter names without explaining their purpose or the return format. This is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly, especially with similar sibling tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description incorrectly states that q, from, size are required (schema shows they are optional with defaults null). This misleading information harms usability. No additional meaning is added for other parameters like sort, group, includeFields, or body.

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

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

The description states 'Returns events' and specifies the HTTP endpoint, but does not clarify what type of events or how the search works. It is clear enough for a basic search operation but lacks specificity to distinguish from similar sibling tools like organization_endpoint_publisher_product_versions_search.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as organization_endpoint_group_search or organization_publisher_operating_systems_search are not mentioned, nor are any conditions for using this tool over others.

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

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

No annotations exist, and the description only says 'Returns events' without detailing behavior (e.g., authentication, rate limits, side effects). It barely adds transparency beyond the HTTP method.

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

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

The description is very short (one line) but lacks structure and front-loads technical details (HTTP method/path) over purpose. It is concise but not effectively organized.

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

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

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description omits return value details and parameter format. It only mentions three parameters as required, despite schema showing optional, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

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

The description claims q, from, size are required, but the schema shows all parameters are optional with null defaults. This contradiction misleads the agent. Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds no meaningful semantics.

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

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

The description states it returns events via a POST search, and the name clearly indicates the resource (product versions). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling search tools like organization_endpoint_publisher_operating_systems_search.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not specify any context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Returns events' without disclosing any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, permissions, rate limits). Minimal transparency.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence) but includes redundant HTTP path. It is concise but lacks structure and front-loading of key information.

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

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

No output schema; description only says 'Returns events'. No details on output format, pagination, errors, or parameter dependencies. Incomplete for a 7-parameter search tool.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds little: it incorrectly claims 'q, from, size' are required (schema shows they are optional with null defaults). It does not explain the meaning of parameters beyond schema definitions.

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

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

The description states 'Returns events' and includes the HTTP method/path, indicating the tool returns search results. However, it doesn't specify what kind of events (e.g., vulnerability events) or distinguish it from sibling search tools like 'endpoint_search' or 'vulnerability_search'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisities, exclusions, or context provided. The description is purely functional with no usage advice.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only mentions 'Disable' and 'Requires a JSON request body', but does not disclose permanence, side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The phrase 'Disable' may conflict with the DELETE path, causing ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the resource name. However, it is under-specified and fails to earn its place by omitting critical details, making it merely adequate.

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

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

For a deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain return values, error conditions, and confirmation requirements. It does not, leaving the agent without sufficient context for safe invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (parameter 'body' has description 'JSON request body'), but the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Moreover, it states 'Requires a JSON request body' while the schema indicates the body is optional (default null, anyOf includes null), which is misleading.

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

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

The description states 'Disable instance of the object' with the HTTP method and path, clearly indicating a delete/disable operation. The verb 'Disable' could be interpreted differently than 'delete' but is still specific. It distinguishes from sibling insert and update tools through the action.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or insert). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid using the tool.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'insert instance of the object'. No disclosure of side effects, idempotency, permissions, or error conditions.

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

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

One concise sentence including endpoint path. Could be slightly improved with line breaks for readability, but efficient overall.

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

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

No output schema, no annotations, minimal parameter description. Does not explain return values, body format, or error handling, leaving the agent under-informed.

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

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

The only parameter 'body' is described as 'JSON request body' in both schema and description, which is redundant. Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but description adds no extra meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states it inserts an instance of an object using PUT method, distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete and update. However, it could be more specific about which object is inserted.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update or delete. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Requires a JSON request body' but omits side effects, authentication needs, idempotency, or error handling.

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

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

The description is very short and front-loaded with the tool name and HTTP path. It avoids verbosity, though the inclusion of the path could be considered redundant.

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

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

For a simple update tool with no output schema, the description fails to explain return value, expected body structure, or success criteria, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% (the only parameter 'body' has a description), so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the schema's description is generic, leaving the body structure unspecified.

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

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

The description states 'Update instance of the object' with the resource name, making the verb and resource clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete/insert, but lacks specifics on what fields are updated.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about valid scenarios for updating.

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

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

No annotations exist and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or authentication needs beyond the minimal 'Returns events.'

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

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

The description is short but combines the name, path, and requirement in a single sentence; functional but could be better structured.

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

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

With no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete—no details on return format, event semantics, or how to use sort.

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

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

The description incorrectly claims q and positionQuery are required (contradicting schema which shows all optional) and adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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

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

The description states 'Returns events' but does not clarify what 'locate object position' means or how it differs from similar tools like organization_publisher_products_locate_object_position.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; no when/not-to-use context provided.

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

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

Lacks annotations, so description must carry full burden. It mentions 'Returns events' but does not clarify side effects, safety, or whether it is read-only. Additionally, it claims parameters q, from, size are required, contradicting the input schema where they are optional.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, but it redundantly includes the tool name and API path. It is concise but lacks effective structure and fails to prioritize key information.

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

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

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is highly incomplete. It omits return format, pagination details, filtering semantics, and how it differs from similar tools.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'query param q (str)'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond listing required parameters (incorrectly). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states 'Returns events' but does not specify what kind of events or the role of operating systems. It is minimal and only slightly better than a tautology.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like organization_endpoint_publisher_operating_systems_search or other search tools. The description provides no context for selection.

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

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

Description contradicts input schema by claiming 'q' and 'positionQuery' are required when schema lists them with default null and no required flag. No annotations provided to compensate. No disclosure of behavior like read-only or mutation.

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

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

One short sentence that is incomplete and potentially misleading. Missing critical information makes it under-specified rather than concise.

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

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex task (locating object position), the description fails to explain the response structure, pagination, or how to construct positionQuery. Inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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

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

While schema descriptions cover all parameters, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It misleads by stating parameters are required, which contradicts schema. No details on format or allowed values.

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

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

The description states 'Returns events' and provides HTTP path, but fails to clarify what 'locate object position' means. It does not distinguish from sibling locate tools like 'organization_publisher_operating_systems_locate_object_position'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search tools). The description does not mention any prerequisites or context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It claims 'Required: q, from, size' but the schema shows all parameters are optional with null defaults. It does not disclose side effects, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only.

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

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

The description is very short but includes a potential contradiction about required parameters. It lacks structure and omits key information.

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

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

With no output schema and 7 parameters, the description should explain return values and more context. It only says 'Returns events' but not the format or meaning.

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

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

The schema descriptions are minimal ('query param x (type)') and the tool description adds no additional meaning. For 7 parameters, no parameter is explained beyond the schema.

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

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

The description says 'Returns events' but the tool name is about searching publisher products. It vaguely mentions the endpoint and required parameters but does not clearly state the tool's purpose or differentiate it from siblings like 'organization_publisher_products_locate_object_position'.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other search tools in the sibling list. No alternatives or contextual cues provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates 'inserts object and stores its file' but omits details on side effects, permissions, file handling, or error conditions.

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

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

The description is short but contains redundancy (tool name and endpoint path). It is not efficiently front-loaded with the core action, though it avoids unnecessary fluff.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fails to sufficiently explain the tool's behavior for a mutation operation that involves file storage. It does not clarify the role of the body parameter or the outcome of the operation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no meaningful information beyond the schema and includes the misleading statement 'Required: q', which contradicts the schema (q is not required).

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

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

The description states it inserts an object and stores its file, which is a specific verb-resource pair. However, it inaccurately claims 'Required: q' when q has no required constraints in the schema, and it does not clearly distinguish from sibling tools like organization_scan_input_upload.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other scan input tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions redirect without detailing what happens on missing id, the type of redirect, or effects of the preformExternalRedirect parameter.

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

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

The description is very short and gets to the point, but could be better structured to separate purpose from parameter notes. The sentence is efficient but lacks front-loading of key info.

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

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the redirect behavior, return type, or how the parameters affect the outcome. The contradiction about required further reduces completeness.

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

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema for the parameters. Worse, it contradicts the schema by stating 'Required: id' when the schema marks id as optional with a null default. The preformExternalRedirect parameter is not mentioned.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (redirect) and resource (static file), and mentions the required parameter id. However, it could be more specific about what 'static file' refers to in the context of organization scan input, and does not differentiate from sibling redirect tools.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like organization_scan_input_search or upload. The description only states that id is required but does not explain contexts or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description should disclose behavior. It minimally says 'Returns events' but contradicts schema on required params. No mention of idempotency, authentication, or error conditions.

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

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

Very short, but the required params list is unclear due to schema contradiction. Front-loaded with action but lacks structure.

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

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

With 7 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide essential context like pagination, error handling, or relationship to other tools.

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

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

Schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'query param q (str)') and the description adds little beyond a misleading required list. No explanation of parameter functionality or formats.

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

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

The description states it returns events for organization scan input search, but the claim that q, from, size are required contradicts the schema where all params are optional. This reduces clarity.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. sibling search tools (e.g., automation_search, endpoint_search). Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it requires a JSON request body, but does not mention idempotency, destructiveness, permissions, or side effects.

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

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

The description is very short (one sentence), but it lacks essential information. It is front-loaded with the tool name and endpoint, but conciseness here sacrifices clarity.

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

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return behavior, required fields, and permissions. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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

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

The only parameter 'body' has schema description 'JSON request body', which is trivial. The description redundantly says 'Requires a JSON request body,' adding no additional meaning about expected fields or structure.

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

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

The description indicates it updates an instance but is vague: 'Update instance of the object' does not specify which object or fields. The name implies organization scan input, but the description lacks specificity. Siblings include other update tools, so differentiation is weak.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, conditions, 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.