open-webui-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.2
Disambiguation1/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple 'Get Models' and 'Process Web' endpoints with indistinguishable descriptions. The vast number of similar tools makes it nearly impossible for an agent to consistently select the correct one.
Naming Consistency2/5
While there is a general pattern of verb_noun_api_v1_resource_action, the naming is highly inconsistent: duplicate tool names, missing action suffixes, and extremely long names make it confusing. The pattern breaks down frequently.
Tool Count1/5
At 317 tools, the count is far too high for a coherent surface. This suggests a lack of abstraction and many tools that could be combined or parameterized. It overwhelms any agent trying to use this server.
Completeness3/5
Despite the excessive count, the tools cover a wide range of Open WebUI functionality, including CRUD for many resources, authentication, file operations, and retrieval. However, there are some gaps (e.g., update missing for some resources) and redundant tools.
Average 2.1/5 across 317 of 317 tools scored. Lowest: 1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 41 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It only states 'Create New Tools' without disclosing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what happens upon creation (e.g., whether it overwrites or requires unique names).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only two words, the description is severely underspecified. Conciseness without information is not valuable; the description fails to include any meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema details) and the presence of many sibling creation tools, this description is entirely incomplete. It provides no context about what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (including required ones like id, name, content, meta). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on parameter semantics or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Tools' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding any specific verb-resource detail. It fails to indicate what kind of tools are created or how this tool differs from the many sibling tools (e.g., create_new_model, create_new_skill, create_new_prompt).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or state changes. Since no annotations are provided, the description fails to inform the agent about the tool's safety or impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too short to be useful. While conciseness is valued, this is under-specification that omits critical information needed for correct tool selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (generic object), lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide any meaningful context for the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'form_data' with no description, and the tool description adds no explanation of what data is expected. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no value for understanding parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate Autocompletion' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It provides no specific verb+resource context, making it impossible to understand what kind of autocompletion is performed or how it differs from other similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other generation tools like generate_chat_tags or generate_emoji. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, permissions, rate limits). The description carries the full burden but adds nothing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is under-specified—a short phrase that fails to provide essential information. While concise, it does not earn its place due to lack of substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has a complex ecosystem with many siblings and no schema annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not help the agent understand the tool's role or how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond its name. What kind of ID is expected (function ID? user ID?) is unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: 'Get Function User Valves By Id' simply restates the tool name without specifying what user valves are or how this differs from sibling tools like get_function_user_valves_spec_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no context provided that helps an agent choose appropriately among many similar 'get' tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description is only 3 words and does not mention any behavioral traits such as whether the tool initiates a request, handles a response, or changes state. This is insufficient for an OAuth callback, scoring 1.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is concise (3 words), it is under-specified to the point of being useless. True conciseness requires conveying essential information without waste; here, the description adds no value beyond the tool name. This is not effective conciseness, scoring 1.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an OAuth callback (which typically involves handling redirects, exchanging codes, etc.), the description is completely inadequate. There is no output schema, no annotations, and the description provides no context about the tool's role in the OAuth flow. The agent cannot determine what the tool does or how to use it, scoring 1.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter (client_id) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not clarify the meaning or purpose of client_id, leaving the agent without understanding of how to populate it. This is a complete lack of parameter semantics, scoring 1.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'Oauth Client Callback', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not specify what action the tool performs or differentiate it from sibling tools like 'oauth_client_authorize_oauth_clients' or 'oauth_login_callback_oauth'. This is a tautology, scoring 1.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple OAuth-related sibling tools, but the description gives no context for selection. The agent is left without any usage direction, scoring 1.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the name. It does not mention whether pinning is reversible, what happens to previously pinned items, or any permission requirements. This leaves the agent blind to essential behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While terse, the description lacks substance and fails to convey any useful information. Conciseness without informativeness is not valuable; this is an under-specification rather than a model of brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools and the lack of annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's effect, return value, or relationship to other chat management tools, making it impossible for an agent to select or invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although there is only one parameter, the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify what the 'id' refers to (e.g., chat ID, user ID) or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema's basic type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pin Chat By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name without adding any specificity. It does not explain what pinning means (e.g., whether it marks as important, moves to top, etc.), and fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools that also modify chats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_chat_by_id, clone_chat_by_id, or other chat operations. The description offers no context about prerequisites, side effects, or suitability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only query operation, any required permissions, or potential side effects. The description is essentially empty.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structure or useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context for the agent to understand the tool's purpose or behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the missing parameter explanations. The description adds no meaning to parameters like 'hybrid', 'k', or 'r'. The schema titles are not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query Collection Handler' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying the action or resource. It does not convey that this tool performs a retrieval query against a specified collection, nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'query_doc_handler'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description offers no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_doc_handler, process_text) or 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral information. It does not disclose that the tool accepts audio files, outputs text, or any side effects, rate limits, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short (one word), it is not concise but rather under-specified. It lacks essential information and does not earn its place by providing any useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the two parameters (one required) and the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to describe what the tool does, what input is expected, or what the output is.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that 'file' is an audio file for transcription or that 'language' is optional for specifying the source language.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is the single word 'Transcription', which merely restates the tool name without specifying the action (e.g., transcribe audio to text) or distinguishing it from siblings like speech_api_v1_audio_speech_post. It fails to clarify that this tool converts audio files into text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for transcribing audio files, nor does it differentiate from other audio or processing tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but provides no details on overwrite/merge behavior, permissions required, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words) but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It fails to provide essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover update semantics, parameter constraints, or return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It fails to explain how 'data' and 'permissions' objects are used or how updating works.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Group By Id' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what fields can be updated or the tool's effect, and it fails to distinguish from sibling tools like add_user_to_group or delete_group_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. However, it says nothing about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information and fails to earn its brevity, requiring the agent to infer or guess the tool's capabilities.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain return values, authentication needs, or how the tool interacts with other system components.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'form_data' is an open object with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation of its structure, required fields, or purpose, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to populate it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Chat Completion' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name/title. It fails to specify the action, such as generating a response from a language model, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_messages' or 'generate_moa_response'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools with similar chat/completion functionality, the description offers no context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or any other operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to convey necessary information, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is completely inadequate for a creation tool with no output schema provided. It omits return values, error conditions, and required context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain any parameter. It adds no meaning beyond the input schema's field names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Group' is a tautology of the tool name 'create_new_group', adding no new information or differentiation from sibling tools like create_new_channel or create_new_chat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sibling creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic action. Missing details: side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or impact on related data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified and does not effectively use the conciseness to convey necessary information, making it more of an omission than a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single required parameter and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is critically incomplete, lacking context on deletion behavior, consequences, and relation to other channel operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'id' parameter, and the description does not elaborate on it, leaving the agent without additional meaning about the parameter's format or purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Channel By Id' is a tautology of the tool name and provides no additional information about what the tool does beyond what is already evident from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_channel_by_id or create_new_channel, nor any prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, mutating, requires authentication, or has side effects. The agent is left completely uninformed about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two words), but this brevity sacrifices all essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to earn its place by providing any value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the nested object parameter with no schema coverage and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what constitutes a title generation task, what the expected input format is, or what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines one required parameter 'form_data' with no description and allows arbitrary additional properties. The description does not explain what fields 'form_data' should contain, how to structure the input, or any constraints, leaving the agent unable to properly invoke the tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate Title' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name without specifying what input it uses, what context it operates on, or what type of title it generates. Among many generate_* siblings, it offers no differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_autocompletion or generate_emoji. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which scenarios it is intended for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authorization needs, side effects). The description adds no value beyond the tool name's implication.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to convey necessary information. It is under-specified rather than concise; every sentence should add value, but here the single sentence is a tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, file types, or content handling. It does not, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the 'id' or 'attachment' parameters. The 'attachment' boolean parameter's role is completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get File Content By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not clarify what the tool does, especially compared to siblings like 'get_file_content_by_id_api_v1_files_2' or 'get_file_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as other file content retrieval endpoints. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. However, it only says 'Get Note By Id' with no mention of read-only nature, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if note not found), or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but this is not conciseness; it is under-specification. While brevity is valued, the description fails to include essential context that could be conveyed in a few more words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value (e.g., note details). It does not. Additionally, with many sibling note tools, the description lacks completeness to distinguish its functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema provides no description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no information about what 'id' represents (e.g., note UUID) or its format, leaving the agent with only the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Note By Id' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify that it retrieves a single note by its unique identifier, nor does it differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_notes_api_v1_notes' (list notes) or 'search_notes_api_v1_notes_search_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not indicate that this is for fetching a specific note by ID, as opposed to listing or searching notes. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it fails to indicate whether this operation is idempotent, mutable, or requires specific permissions. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged to clarify return values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is brief (three words), it is underspecified rather than concise. It omits critical information, making it unhelpful despite its brevity. A concise description would still include minimal usage or behavioral context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's single parameter, zero schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain the tool's purpose relative to siblings, the expected URL format, or operational semantics, leaving the AI agent without sufficient guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single 'url' parameter with format constraints but no description. The tool description adds no explanation of what the URL should point to (e.g., a JSON file, OpenAPI spec, or code module), leaving the agent without necessary context for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Load Function From Url' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what 'load' entails (e.g., import, fetch, register). It does not differentiate this tool from the similar sibling 'load_tool_from_url_api_v1_tools_load_url_post', leaving ambiguous whether functions and tools are distinct concepts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_new_function' or 'load_tool_from_url'. The description lacks any contextual cues about prerequisites, side effects, or appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., creating a session), authorization requirements, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but achieves conciseness at the cost of informativeness. It fails to convey essential details, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the OAuth context and lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it fits into the OAuth flow, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'client_id', and the tool description adds no information about its meaning, format, or purpose beyond the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Oauth Client Authorize' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify the action (e.g., initiate authorization flow, generate token) or distinguish from siblings like oauth_client_callback or oauth_login_oauth.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related OAuth tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, flow steps, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey all behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., completing an OAuth flow, setting tokens, redirects, or error conditions). The agent cannot infer safety or mutability.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which could be considered concise, but it sacrifices essential information. A single sentence that adds no value is not effective conciseness; there is no structure or front-loading of key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool description is critically incomplete. The agent cannot determine the tool's purpose, parameters, or behavior, making it nearly unusable without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'provider' parameter, and the description adds no information about what 'provider' values are valid or how to use it. The agent must guess the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Oauth Login Callback' merely restates the tool name without specifying what the callback does. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'oauth_login_callback_oauth' and 'oauth_login_oauth', leaving the agent without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist (e.g., prior OAuth authorization request), or how it relates to other OAuth tools. The agent has no guidance on invoking it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., does it mutate data?), authentication requirements, rate limits, or idempotency. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it provides zero useful information beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely brief (two words), it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits critical information that could be conveyed efficiently, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (3 parameters, retrieval context, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools), the description is entirely inadequate. It provides no context about return values, processing behavior, or how to use the parameters effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain what 'collection_name', 'content', or 'name' represent or how they affect processing. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Process Text' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name and title without specifying what type of processing (e.g., indexing, analyzing, transforming) is performed or on what kind of text. It fails to differentiate from sibling tools like process_file, process_web, or query_collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative process or query tools. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description gives no information about side effects, required permissions, or behavioral traits. The two-word description fails to disclose any operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but brevity without information is not conciseness. It fails to provide any useful content, resulting in under-specification rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It omits critical details about what the tool does, how it should be used, and what the output looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. While two boolean parameters have schema descriptions, the description does not clarify the significance of collection_name or url, and the overall purpose remains unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Process Web' is a tautology that essentially repeats the tool name without specifying any verb or resource. It does not clarify what 'processing' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like process_web_search or process_text.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it compares to alternatives such as process_web_search or process_youtube.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the action, with no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The agent cannot infer safety or behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words) but at the expense of informativeness. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential details; here it fails to earn its place by omitting critical context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is wholly inadequate. It lacks all necessary context for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. 'id' and 'user_ids' remain ambiguous; the description does not clarify that 'id' refers to a channel ID or that 'user_ids' are the users to remove.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove Members By Id' is a tautology, merely restating the tool's name without specifying what resource is affected (e.g., channel). It fails to provide a clear verb-resource pair or distinguish it from siblings like add_members_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include add_members and update_is_active_member, but the description offers no context or conditions for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to explain what 'toggle' means (e.g., enable/disable, switch state), what the effect is, or any side effects, permissions, or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It lacks crucial information that would justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not clarify the toggle behavior or return value. It fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's functionality for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond the schema. The parameter is generic and unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle Global By Id' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what entity or property is being toggled, making the purpose vague and indistinguishable from sibling toggle tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling toggle tools like 'toggle_function_by_id' or 'toggle_model_by_id'. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Update' without explaining side effects (e.g., overwriting folder_id, allowing null to remove folder) or whether folder existence is validated. This is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (5 words), but it is not effectively concise—it omits essential details. A concise description should be informative, not just brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools and the absence of output schema details in the context, the description fails to provide enough information for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool. It should clarify how this update differs from others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The nullable nature of folder_id is critical for understanding the tool's functionality but is not mentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Chat Folder Id By Id' is a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what resource is affected (e.g., a chat's folder assignment). It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like update_chat_by_id or update_folder_name_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other update_chat or update_folder tools. The description offers no context about preconditions or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether updates are partial or full, what side effects occur, or authentication requirements. The description provides no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, conciseness should not sacrifice informativeness. The description is under-specified and fails to earn its place with any useful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (5 required parameters, nested objects, and an output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how to use the endpoint or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, which itself has only 20% parameter description coverage. Key parameters like 'content', 'meta', and 'name' are not explained in terms of their role in the update operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Function By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without specifying what aspects of a function can be updated or any additional context. It does not distinguish the tool from many other update tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_function_valves_by_id or update_function_user_valves_by_id. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and description lacks any disclosure about side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing access grants.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but only repeats the name; under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, description does not explain return format, usage context, or examples, making it completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description adds no meaning beyond the schema for 'id' and 'access_grants'; schema coverage is 0% and description fails to explain what access_grants should contain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology: 'Update Knowledge Access By Id' restates the tool name without specifying what knowledge access means or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_knowledge_by_id_api_v1_knowledge'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other update tools for knowledge or access-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the update is partial or full, required permissions, response format, or side effects (e.g., overwriting fields not included).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks essential details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, failing to serve the agent's needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention that 'id' and 'title' are required, nor does it explain the optional fields or expected return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for any of the 5 parameters. The tool description does not compensate; it does not clarify what 'access_grants', 'data', 'meta', or 'title' represent or how they should be used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Note By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what aspects of a note can be updated (title, data, meta, access_grants). It provides no specific verb-resource combination beyond what is already obvious from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_new_note', 'delete_note_by_id', or 'update_note_access_by_id'. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals nothing: no mention of input requirements (even though schema has zero params), output format, side effects, or access restrictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single word, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not front-load essential details, and every sentence (the only one) does not earn its place by adding useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely role as a speech generation endpoint and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not help an agent understand what the tool does or when to use it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no value beyond the schema, merely stating 'Speech'. Per baseline rule for 0 params, score could be 4, but the description fails to provide any meaningful context, warranting a lower score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Speech' is a tautology that simply repeats part of the tool name without specifying the verb or resource. It fails to state that this tool generates speech audio from text, which is its likely purpose based on naming convention. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'transcription_api_v1_audio_transcriptions_post'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transcription for audio-to-text, or other audio config tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided and a description lacking any behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, error handling, output description), the tool reveals no behavioral traits beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely concise (2 words), it provides no meaningful information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 required parameters with nested objects and an output schema, the description is wholly insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool does, how parameters relate, or the outcome.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the 4 required parameters (id, name, content, meta). The nested meta object is completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Function' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling creation tools like create_new_channel, create_new_chat, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as load_function_from_url or update_function_by_id. The description offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and the description lacks any behavioral details such as irreversibility, permissions required, or side effects (e.g., deleting reactions, attachments).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Overly minimal (2 words) but not concise because it omits critical information. A concise description would include necessary context in a few more words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is inadequate for a delete operation with two required parameters. It fails to clarify usage, return values, or constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'id' and 'message_id'. The agent cannot infer which refers to channel vs message.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Message By Id' states the verb and resource but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_channel_by_id' or 'delete_all_tags_by_id'. The term 'Id' is ambiguous because the input schema has two IDs: 'id' and 'message_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., 'update_message_by_id', 'add_reaction_to_message'). No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Delete' with no mention of consequences, permissions required, irreversibility, or side effects on shared state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it provides no useful information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema (unseen) and many sibling tools, the description provides no context about return values or how it differs from other delete tools. It is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. The single parameter 'id' is not explained (e.g., what chat ID refers to, where to find it).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Delete Shared Chat By Id' restates the tool name verbatim, offering no differentiation from siblings like 'delete_chat_by_id_api_v1_chats' or 'delete_all_user_chats'. It fails to clarify what distinguishes a shared chat from a regular chat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify whether this deletes a shared copy or the original or when to use delete_chat_by_id instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, its rate limits, side effects, or file size constraints. The agent cannot assess the impact or safety of invoking this tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the expense of essential information. It fails to provide any structural content beyond the name, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly. Conciseness is not valuable when it leads to under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no context about the expected input, output format, or use case. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'messages' array and 'title' string are not explained. The agent has no idea what format 'messages' should be in (e.g., chat message objects?) or how 'title' is used (e.g., filename?).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Download Chat As Pdf' merely restates the tool name, which is a tautology. It does not specify what type of chat content is downloaded, how the output is used, or how it differs from other export/download tools like 'export_chat_stats' or 'export_single_chat_stats'. This provides no meaningful purpose clarity for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., needing to first obtain chat ID or messages), or when not to use it. The agent is left without any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as the export format, pagination behavior, or whether the tool is destructive. The description is essentially empty of behavioral info.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of essential information. It lacks structure and fails to convey purpose or usage. Effective conciseness would prioritize critical details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero schema coverage, no annotations, and only a 4-word description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. The agent cannot reliably understand the tool's functionality, parameters, or output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (updated_at, page, stream). Without any further detail, the agent cannot infer their semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export Chat Stats' restates the tool name (export_chat_stats) without adding specificity. It does not clarify what kind of stats are exported or how this differs from sibling tools like 'export_single_chat_stats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling tools include 'export_single_chat_stats' and 'get_session_user_chat_usage_stats', but the description gives no context for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authorization needs, or return format. The agent gets no indication of what the tool does beyond the single phrase.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only two words, the description is too brief to be useful. While concise, it fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (generation task with a free-form input parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not equip the agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'form_data' remains completely unexplained despite 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning about its expected structure or content, forcing the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate Follow Ups' states the action and resource but is vague. It does not specify what kind of follow-ups (e.g., tasks, messages, suggestions) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like generate_autocompletion, generate_chat_tags, etc., which have similar format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are given, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as generation speed, output format, or required resources. The tool is a black box beyond its name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but lacks substantive information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently communicative. Every sentence does not earn its place because it contributes nothing beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and siblings like 'image_edits', the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to provide the necessary context for correct usage or differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 6 parameters with zero descriptions (0% coverage). The description 'Generate Images' adds no meaning to parameters like 'model', 'n', 'negative_prompt', etc. The agent must infer their purposes from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate Images' states a verb and resource but is vague. It does not specify what kind of images, the model used, or how it differs from siblings like 'image_edits' or 'generate_image_prompt'. The purpose is clear only at a high level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use, prerequisites, or context. The description is silent on usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is entirely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns embeddings in a specific format. The agent is left completely uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to deliver any useful information; every sentence (or word) must earn its place, and this one does not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, this description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it relates to other embedding endpoints, or any side effects, making it impossible for the agent to understand its role.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'text' parameter at all. It provides no clarification on input format, constraints (e.g., max length, encoding), or the meaning of null values, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Embeddings' simply restates the tool name, providing no additional detail. It is a verb+resource but lacks specificity about the type of embeddings (e.g., text, vector size) and fails to distinguish from similar tools like 'embeddings_api_v1_embeddings_post'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools related to retrieval and embeddings, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get Functions' with no mention of read-only nature, authentication requirements, export behavior, or the effect of the 'include_valves' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise at two words, the description is under-specified and fails to communicate essential information. Brevity here sacrifices clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many sibling function tools and the existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify the output format, the meaning of 'export', or how this tool fits into the broader set of function operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'include_valves' has no description in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what this parameter does, leaving the agent without guidance on its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'Get Functions', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify that this tool is for exporting functions (as the name 'export_get' suggests), nor does it distinguish from siblings like 'get_function_list_api_v1_functions_list_get' or 'get_functions_api_v1_functions'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other function-related tools such as listing, retrieving by ID, or exporting in different formats. The description lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description gives zero behavioral details, such as whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or returns a list. The output schema exists but is not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two words) and lacks structure. While concise, it omits essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (sibling tools, optional parameter, output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what groups are, how to use the 'share' parameter, or how results are structured.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'share' has no description in the schema or the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent cannot interpret its purpose (e.g., filter groups by sharing status).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Groups' is a verb+noun but lacks specificity. It does not clarify whether it lists all groups or retrieves a group, and fails to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_group_by_id' or 'get_user_groups'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_group_by_id or get_user_groups. The agent has no criteria to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the bare operation. It does not disclose pagination, data fields, 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.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only 2 words, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to provide any useful content that would earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values. The tool's purpose and behavior are completely unclear, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'page' with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of its purpose or usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Notes' is a verb+resource but extremely vague. It does not specify what subset or list is retrieved, and does not distinguish from siblings like 'search_notes' or 'get_note_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling tools for notes (e.g., search_notes, get_note_by_id), the description fails to provide any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present. The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, scope of results, or side effects. Agent lacks crucial context for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words) but at the cost of clarity. It is not well-structured; while short, it omits essential information, making it unhelpful rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description provides no context on what the prompt list contains, how to use parameters, or how to interpret results. It is completely inadequate for a tool with 6 optional parameters and numerous siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 6 optional parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. Agent cannot determine the function of query, view_option, tag, order_by, direction, or page.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Prompt List' states a verb and resource but is vague. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_prompts or get_prompt_by_command. The title is null, leaving purpose ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus other prompt listing tools. No alternatives or context for filtering, pagination, or specific use cases are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, rate limits). Output schema exists but adds no context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (5 words) but lacks substantive information. This is under-specification, not concise value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. Output schema exists but cannot compensate for the lack of context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain any parameters. Required 'name' is ambiguous (tag name vs user name), and optional 'limit'/'skip' for pagination are unmentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology; 'Get User Chat List By Tag Name' merely restates the name without specifying what 'user' or 'tag name' refers to. It does not distinguish from siblings like 'get_user_chat_list_by_user_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on whether it applies to the session user or a specific user.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only, pagination support, or ordering. It provides none, leaving the agent unaware of important behavior beyond what the schema indicates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is overly terse and sacrifices necessary detail. It is not well-structured as it merely restates the tool name, providing no added value for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 optional parameters and many sibling tools, the description is complete only for a trivial use case. It omits crucial context about parameter interactions and selection criteria, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (query, order_by, direction, page). Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Users' states the verb and resource but fails to differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_all_users_api_v1_users_all_get' or 'get_user_by_id_api_v1_users'. Without specifying scope (e.g., paginated list, filtering), the purpose remains vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other user-retrieval tools. The sibling list includes multiple similar tools (e.g., get_all_users, search_users), making this gap critical for an AI agent to select correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is a read/write, requires authentication, or has side effects. The agent learns nothing about safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise but at the expense of clarity. It fails to convey essential information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the callback's purpose and the parameter. It does not, leaving the definition incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage for the 'provider' parameter, and the description does not explain its meaning. The agent has no clue what values to provide or how 'provider' is used.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Oauth Login Callback' essentially restates the tool name without adding specific verb or resource context. It does not clarify what action the tool performs or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'oauth_login_callback_oauth_2'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it redirects, prompts user, returns a token). The agent has no insight into side effects or required user actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, it is concise but severely underspecified. The description lacks substance; brevity is not valued here over completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, and a single parameter, the description fails to provide even basic context. The tool's operation, prerequisites, and results are entirely opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'provider' parameter (e.g., possible values like google, github). The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is only 'Oauth Login', which is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify the action (e.g., initiate, authenticate) or differentiate from sibling tools like oauth_login_callback_oauth, which also involve OAuth login.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many OAuth-related siblings, the description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description reveals nothing about behavior such as what 'processing' entails, side effects, or required permissions. The agent receives no insight into the tool's actions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two words, which is an under-specification rather than concise. It fails to provide necessary information to the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, many sibling tools) and lack of output schema, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine how to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (process and overwrite have descriptions, collection_name and url do not). The description adds no parameter information, so it does not compensate for the incomplete schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'Process Web', which is vague and does not specify that the tool processes YouTube videos. The tool name includes 'youtube', but the description is misleading and fails to convey the specific resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like process_web_api_v1_retrieval_process_web_post. The description lacks any context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or idempotency. The agent has no information about what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (2 words) but at the cost of usefulness. It lacks front-loaded key information and does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is completely inadequate. The agent has virtually no understanding of when or how to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 6 parameters. The agent must infer parameter semantics from names only, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is 'Query Doc Handler', which is too vague. It does not specify what action the tool performs (e.g., query, retrieve, list) or what resource it operates on. It fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'query_collection_handler'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the name, providing no information about 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.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that mirrors the tool name, offering no additional value. It is underspecified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of schema descriptions and no output schema details, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the operation's purpose, parameters, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 3 required parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description gives no hints about what 'id', 'message_id', or 'name' represent, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description simply restates the tool name without clarifying the context (e.g., removing a reaction from a message in a channel). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'add_reaction_to_message_api_v1_channels' or other removal tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many deletion/removal tools, and the description offers no differentiation or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a destructive operation, what exactly gets reset (e.g., data, state), or any side effects. The agent has no insight into the tool's impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), but lacks meaningful content. It achieves conciseness at the expense of informativeness, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, output schema exists), the description fails to explain the reset operation's effect, return value, or prerequisites. The agent cannot reliably decide when or how to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description simply states 'id' parameter in the resource name but provides no explanation of its purpose or format beyond what the schema already shows. No value added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Reset Knowledge By Id' is nearly tautological with the tool name. It states the verb and resource but fails to clarify what 'reset' entails (e.g., clear embeddings, reinitialize data), offering no distinction from sibling tools like delete or update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use reset versus alternatives (e.g., delete_knowledge_by_id, reindex_knowledge), nor 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the search is read-only. The schema suggests pagination via the 'page' parameter, but the description does not mention it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly brief (3 words) and lacks essential details. While short, it does not earn its place as it provides insufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with pagination, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the search scope, return format, or behavior, relying entirely on the output schema (which is not provided in the description).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. 'text' is required but not explained (e.g., what it searches against), and 'page' is optional with no explanation of its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search User Chats' is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_user_chat_list_api_v1_chats' or 'get_user_chat_list_by_tag_name_api_v1_chats_tags_post'. It lacks specificity on what is being searched (e.g., by text, tags, or content).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scope (e.g., current user only), or context for using the search functionality.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description says nothing about side effects, permissions, error handling, or behavior when the file does not exist. The tool's behavior is completely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but insufficiently informative. Three words do not constitute effective communication; the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
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 minimal description, the definition provides almost no information about what the tool returns or how to use it correctly. Completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not clarify the 'path' parameter format (relative vs absolute, file type, etc.), leaving the agent with no information beyond the schema's type string.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Serve Cache File' is vague. It specifies a verb and resource but fails to explain what serving means (e.g., return content, path, or metadata) and does not distinguish from numerous sibling tools like get_file_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Set Banners' implies a write operation but provides no details on idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or data constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of essential information. A single phrase is insufficient; it should at least clarify the action and context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits key details like the effect on existing banners, return value, or error conditions. Inadequate for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning to the 'banners' array parameter. Individual fields like 'content', 'dismissible', etc., are unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb and resource ('Set Banners') but lacks specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling 'get_banners' or explain what 'setting' entails. Vague purpose with no differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set', implying mutation, but fails to detail side effects, permission requirements, persistence behavior, or any other important behavioral characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words, which is under-specified rather than concise. While brevity is good, it omits essential information, making it unhelpful. A concise description should still convey purpose and key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the two boolean parameters, the existence of an output schema (not shown), and the presence of many sibling config tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not address return values, effects, or how this tool fits into the broader configuration system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the two boolean parameters. It does not explain what 'ENABLE_BASE_MODELS_CACHE' or 'ENABLE_DIRECT_CONNECTIONS' control, leaving the agent without context to set them correctly. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set Connections Config' is vague; it only restates the tool's name without specifying what the connections config is or what it does. Sibling tools like 'set_models_config' and 'set_banners_config' also have similarly terse descriptions, but this one fails to differentiate the purpose or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the companion 'get_connections_config' tool or any context about prerequisites, best practices, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits, such as side effects (e.g., destroying session, requiring prior authentication), rate limits, or idempotency. The agent has no insight into what calling this tool does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one word) but at the expense of useful detail. It is not front-loaded with key information; it is under-specified and does not earn its place as a standalone description. 'Conciseness' should not be conflated with brevity that omits critical context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple name, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what happens upon signout (e.g., session termination, cookie clearing, API key invalidation) or any postconditions. The agent cannot safely or confidently invoke this tool based on this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds no meaning beyond the tool name; 'Signout' does not clarify any parameter context or semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description fails to add value, thus a 2 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a single word 'Signout' which tautologically restates the tool name. It does not specify what signing out entails, such as session invalidation or token clearing, nor does it distinguish this from sibling authentication tools like signin or delete_api_key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like signin, signup, or token exchange. The description offers no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, prerequisites, error conditions). The agent cannot anticipate outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one word, but this under-specification makes it unhelpful. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details, the single-word description is grossly insufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to parameters. It does not explain what email, name, password, or profile_image_url represent beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Signup' vaguely indicates a user registration function but does not differentiate from siblings like add_user or signin. It restates the name without adding specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as signin or add_user, leaving the agent without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no behavioral details in the description, the tool's side effects, safety profile, and required permissions are completely undisclosed. The agent cannot know the implications of toggling a function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but fails to convey useful information. It is under-specified rather than concise, and the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple interface (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description should at least state what toggling does and what the response contains. It is entirely incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter name 'id'. The parameter's purpose is obvious from the name, but no details about expected format or constraints are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle Function By Id' merely restates the tool name without adding specific verb-resource clarity or distinguishing it from sibling toggle tools (e.g., toggle_global_by_id, toggle_skill_by_id). It fails to indicate what 'toggle' means (enable/disable, activate/deactivate).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other toggle or function-related tools. The description lacks any context for selection, such as prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It states only 'Toggle Model By Id' with no disclosure of state changes, reversibility, permissions, or side effects. This is completely inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence but is under-specified. It lacks essential details, so it is not usefully concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex environment with many sibling tools and no parameter explanation, the description is severely incomplete. It omits output, side effects, and state semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description adds no meaning. The agent receives zero guidance on what value to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle Model By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name. It fails to specify what toggling means (e.g., enable/disable, activate/deactivate) and does not distinguish from similar toggle tools like toggle_function_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_model_by_id or delete_model_by_id. The description offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details. It fails to disclose whether the update is a full replace or a merge, whether it requires specific permissions, or any side effects. The name implies mutation, but no further transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words, which is too brief to be useful. While it is concise in length, it sacrifices necessary information, making it ineffective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters (including a nested object) and an output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, or what the response looks like.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for the parameters. The 'chat' object with additionalProperties: true is left completely unexplained, and the role of 'folder_id' is not described.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Chat By Id' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what fields can be updated, the resource type, or distinguish it from sibling tools like update_chat_folder_id_by_id or update_chat_message_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, such as when updating specific chat properties versus using dedicated tools for folder or message updates. There is no mention of prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not mention authentication, side effects, or idempotency. The naming inconsistency between the tool name (including 'user_id') and the input schema (only 'id') adds confusion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise but at the expense of usefulness. It is a single sentence that adds little value. It is not well-structured to convey key information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools and the lack of output schema details, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the resource, effects, or prerequisites, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to parameters. The parameter 'id' is ambiguous (likely channel ID, but not clarified), and 'is_active' is self-explanatory but lacks context. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Is Active Member By Id And User Id' is vague. It does not clearly state what 'is active member' means or which resource is being updated. The tool name suggests updating a member's active status, but the description fails to specify that it pertains to a channel member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among sibling tools like update_channel_by_id and add_members, there is no differentiation or context to help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, destructive potential, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, but this description lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description fails to provide essential context such as prerequisites, effects, or return values. It is wholly insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about the 'enable_ldap' parameter. The meaning of true, false, or null is left entirely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Ldap Config' is a tautology that restates the tool name. It does not specify what specific aspects of LDAP configuration can be updated or what the tool does beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'get_ldap_config' and 'update_ldap_server' exist, but the description provides no context for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update' implying a write operation, but provides no details on whether it performs a partial patch or full replacement, what side effects occur, or any authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (3 words) but severely under-specified. Conciseness is not the same as brevity; the description fails to deliver necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters including nested objects, a required id, and an output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It omits what the response contains, which fields are updatable, and how required parameters like 'meta' and 'params' are used.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides zero parameter information, not even listing the 7 parameters or explaining how they affect the update.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Update Model By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and endpoint. It fails to specify what attributes can be updated or how this update differs from other update operations among a large list of siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus creating a new model or deleting. No prerequisites, success criteria, or scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or any side effects. The agent gets no sense of what invoking this tool entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only two words, it is excessively terse and lacks structure. Conciseness should not come at the expense of informativeness; key details are omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, and a simple tool, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain what voices are retrieved, whether they are pre-defined or dynamic, or any filtering criteria. The agent cannot reliably decide to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema fully defines this aspect. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, but the description adds no meaning beyond the name, so it does not exceed the baseline. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description neither harms nor helps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Voices' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what voices are returned (e.g., TTS voices, languages, styles) nor distinguish it from sibling tools like get_audio_config or speech.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the update is additive or overwriting, permission requirements, or side effects. The agent has no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the expense of useful information. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool updates or how it behaves. Given the complexity of updating a knowledge base (multiple fields, access control), the description is far from complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no additional meaning for the parameters (id, access_grants, description, name). The agent cannot infer the role of each parameter beyond their titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Knowledge By Id' is a tautology of the tool name. It fails to specify what aspects of the knowledge are updated (e.g., metadata, access grants) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_knowledge_access_by_id' or 'reset_knowledge_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other knowledge update tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only repeats the name, offering no information on side effects, destructive nature, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is too minimal. It lacks front-loaded key information and fails to earn its place by providing substantive guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large number of sibling tools and presence of an output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain the cloning process, output, or any related constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for the 'id' parameter. The description does not clarify what 'id' refers to (e.g., shared chat ID), leaving the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clone Shared Chat By Id' is a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional clarity. It states the action (clone) and resource (shared chat) but does not differentiate from siblings like clone_chat_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as clone_chat_by_id or share_chat_by_id. The description lacks context about scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., resource creation, permissions required), rate limits, or any operational impact, which is insufficient for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but it is underspecified for a tool with 9 parameters. Conciseness should not sacrifice critical information; here, the brevity is a deficit, not an asset.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no schema documentation, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to answer fundamental questions about how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 9 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no parameter-level information. Parameter names like 'name', 'description', 'is_private' provide some semantic hints, but the agent has no guidance on constraints, formats, or relationships, making the description inadequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Channel' is a verb+resource but is minimal and indistinguishable from many other creation tools (e.g., create_new_group, create_new_chat) listed as siblings. It provides no context on what a 'channel' specifically is or how it differs from other resources, resulting in vague purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_new_group or create_new_chat. No prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether creation requires authentication, has side effects, or returns any output. The description is entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but conciseness is not served by omitting essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a required nested object parameter, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema), the description is completely inadequate for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior and requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'chat' object or 'folder_id' parameter. The 'chat' parameter has additionalProperties: true, leaving its structure ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Chat' states the verb and resource but merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not differentiate from other chat operations or clarify what constitutes a 'chat' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many chat-related siblings, there is no mention of prerequisites, outcomes, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, side effects, or whether the deletion is permanent. The description is entirely silent on behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but it lacks substance and is essentially redundant with the tool name. Conciseness is not helpful when it sacrifices information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is a delete operation, the description fails to provide critical context such as the effect of deletion, error conditions, or confirmation steps. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for this lack of context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the single required parameter 'id'. It merely restates 'by id' without specifying the format, type constraints, or source of the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Model By Id' is a direct tautology of the tool name, which already includes 'delete_model_by_id'. It adds no new information or clarity beyond what the name provides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like delete_all_models_api_v1_models_delete_all_delete or toggle_model_by_id_api_v1_models_model_toggle_post.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action with no mention of irreversibility, permissions, side effects, or error behavior, leaving the agent completely uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified. While concise in length, it does not earn its place as it adds minimal value; a proper description would include more context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description omits critical context for a delete operation, such as success indicators, error cases, or side effects. It is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (the parameter 'prompt_id' has only a title). The description adds no information about the parameter beyond what the schema already shows, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Prompt By Id' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, restating the verb and resource without adding specificity. It does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like delete_prompt_history_entry, which also deletes a prompt-related entity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no context on what happens after deletion. The description offers no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits disclosed. No annotations provided. The description does not indicate whether deletion is permanent, requires permissions, or has cascading effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but under-specified. It lacks necessary details, making it not efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to provide complete context for a delete operation with two parameters. It does not clarify what is being deleted (a tag from a chat?) or mention the existence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The meaning of 'id' and 'name' (e.g., chat id vs tag id) is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is 'Delete Tag By Id And Tag Name', which is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name. It does not specify that the tag is associated with a chat or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'delete_all_tags_by_id_api_v1_chats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this deletes a single tag by both id and name, while 'delete_all_tags_by_id_api_v1_chats' deletes all tags by id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the operation. It does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, cascading effects, or output behavior (despite having an output schema).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but this brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to provide essential context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the potentially irreversible nature of deletion, the description is severely incomplete. It omits details about side effects, permissions, and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. The parameter 'user_id' is left entirely undefined in terms of format, uniqueness, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete User By Id' is a tautology, essentially restating the tool name without adding any nuance or scope. It does not specify what type of deletion (e.g., soft, permanent) or any constraints, but it does identify the resource and action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_user_by_id, get_user_by_id, or other delete tools). There are no prerequisites, caveats, or examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description gives no insight into behavior (e.g., whether it modifies state, reads data, or what the output format is). The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single sentence fails to provide essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, annotations, or param details, the description is too sparse to enable correct selection or invocation. The agent would lack critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single required parameter 'form_data' (object) has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no explanation of its structure, purpose, or example values, leaving the agent with no guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description is a tautology of the tool name: 'Generate Image Prompt' merely restates the name without adding specificity. It does not clarify whether it generates a text prompt or an image, and fails to distinguish from similar tools like generate_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No information on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., generate_images). Lacks context about prerequisites or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, and the description gives no behavioral info (side effects, state changes, permissions). The agent has no way to know what this tool does beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks essential information; it is under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (many siblings, no annotations, no output schema, a generic parameter), the description is completely insufficient. The agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to the 'form_data' parameter, which is a generic object. The agent cannot determine what data to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate Queries' is vague. It does not specify what type of queries (e.g., search, database, API) and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like generate_autocompletion or generate_follow_ups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other generate_* tools. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a description that only says 'Get Channels,' there is zero disclosure about authentication requirements, side effects, or output format. The tool might be reading channels but the description gives no behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly brief and underspecified. It is not concise in a helpful way; it simply states the obvious without earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and the existence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's functionality or the meaning of its results. It is wholly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although there are no parameters, the description could have clarified what channels are returned (e.g., all channels vs user-specific). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the description adds no value beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Channels' is a tautology that restates the name without any additional detail. It fails to specify what subset of channels is returned or how it differs from siblings like get_all_channels_api_v1_channels_list_get or get_channel_by_id_api_v1_channels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the numerous other channel retrieval tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, destructive, authentication needs). The tool name implies a GET operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is not a model of conciseness when critical information is omitted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one required parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to explain what 'chats' are in this context, what the output contains, or any edge cases. It is completely inadequate for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'folder_id' has no schema description (0% coverage) and the description only repeats the schema title 'Folder Id', adding no explanation of its purpose or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Chats By Folder Id' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, adding no new context. It fails to distinguish from the identical sibling 'get_chat_list_by_folder_id_api_v1_chats_folder'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_chat_list_by_folder_id' or 'get_folder_by_id'. No context on prerequisites or postconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as what the tool returns (output schema exists but not mentioned), authentication needs, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (four words) but fails to provide necessary context. Conciseness is not achieved because the brevity comes at the cost of useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With many sibling tools for file operations and an output schema available, the description is severely incomplete. It does not clarify the return value or how this tool differs from get_file_content_by_id or get_file_data_content_by_id.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although there is only one required parameter 'id', the description does not explain what type of ID (e.g., file ID, database ID) or provide example formats. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get File By Id' merely restates the tool name without adding any specific verb or resource distinction. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_file_content_by_id which also involve getting a file by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_file_content_by_id or list_files. The description lacks 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and the description offers no behavioral details such as authentication requirements, side effects, or return value characteristics. The description is a mere tautology.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but this is not positive conciseness; it is under-specification. It fails to provide necessary information in a structured manner.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description should still clarify the tool's purpose and when to call it. It is completely inadequate for a tool with many siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not explain its meaning, format, or constraints. No value added beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Function By Id' essentially restates the tool name and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_function_list or get_function_valves. No unique scope or resource details are provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related get function tools, the description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails to mention pagination, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or response details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short (3 words), the description is under-specified and lacks essential information, making it ineffective for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role of retrieving knowledge bases, with no annotations, no output schema documentation, and a single parameter, the description is grossly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter (page), and the description adds no meaning about the parameter's purpose, format, or behavior beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Knowledge Bases' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name, providing no additional context or differentiation from sibling tools like get_knowledge_by_id or search_knowledge_bases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get Session User', which implies a read operation but provides no details about safety, destructiveness, or other behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief but lacks necessary information. It is under-specified, not concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention what it returns. For a 'get' operation, describing the return value is important. The description is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and the input schema is empty. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Session User' is a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what the session user is, what it returns, or any additional context about its purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify side effects (e.g., saves edits to the database), required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only or destructive. The description is completely insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single word, which is minimally concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It fails to front-load any useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex input schema (nested object with multiple parameters) and the absence of any annotations or output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not assist the agent in understanding input requirements or expected outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the parameters (e.g., image, prompt, background) have descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters or their roles. The nested 'form_data' object remains opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Image Edits' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not specify the verb (e.g., edit, modify) or the resource (image) beyond what the name already indicates, nor does it distinguish the tool from siblings like 'generate_images_api_v1_images_generations_post'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as image generation or configuration tools. The description lacks any context, prerequisites, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It gives no information about destructive behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. An 'import' operation typically implies modification, 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value; here the single sentence merely restates the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (import operation with nested object and output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It omits details on import format, overwrite behavior, success/error responses, and any validation rules.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'config' parameter beyond its name. The parameter is a nested object, but no hints on expected structure or required fields are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import Config' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It fails to specify what kind of config is being imported or how it differs from sibling tools like import_chats or import_models.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 export_config_api_v1_configs_export_get or other import tools. 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing tools. For a mutation-like operation, this lack of transparency is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its place as it omits essential context that the agent needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having a single parameter and an output schema, the description provides no context about the return value, error conditions, or operational semantics. It is completely insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the 'url' parameter. It fails to specify expected format, access requirements, or relationship to tool sources (e.g., OpenAPI, JSON).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Load Tool From Url' is essentially a tautology of the name, providing minimal clarification. It lacks detail on what 'loading' entails (e.g., importing, adding to a collection) and does not differentiate from similar operations like creating a tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'create_new_tools_api_v1_tools_create_post' or 'load_function_from_url'. The description does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, yet it provides none. No information about side effects, return values, or operational impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words) but fails to provide necessary details. This is under-specification, not effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description must explain purpose and behavior. It does neither, making the tool barely usable for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description should explain the 'queries' parameter. It does not mention it at all, leaving its meaning (search terms, URLs?) completely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Process Web Search' is vague and merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what 'process' entails (e.g., performing a search, indexing results, or extracting content). The name suggests web search retrieval, but the description lacks clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'process_web_api_v1_retrieval_process_web_post' or 'process_youtube'. The description offers no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set Default Suggestions', which implies a mutation but provides no details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what resources are affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words) but lacks structure and substance. It under-specifies the tool; conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (nested array of objects) and the lack of schema descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'default suggestions' are, how they are used, or what the output represents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no property descriptions are provided. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The 'suggestions' parameter's structure (array of objects with 'title' and 'content') is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set Default Suggestions' is vague. It does not specify what kind of suggestions (e.g., prompt suggestions, UI suggestions) or distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'set_banners' or 'set_code_execution_config'. It indicates a write operation but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is too minimal to guide an AI agent in choosing this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set', implying mutation, but fails to describe effects, reversibility, authorization needs, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 3 words, it is concise but severely under-specified. Every sentence should add value; here it adds none beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It does not cover return values, side effects, or any contextual information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter information whatsoever. The schema itself has 5 parameters with only titles, leaving their meaning and usage entirely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set Models Config' merely restates the tool name without additional detail. It does not explain what 'Models Config' comprises or how it differs from the sibling tool 'get_models_config_api_v1_configs_models_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_models_config, other set_* config tools). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., session creation, token return), authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving the agent blind to tool impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely concise with one word, the description is severely under-specified. Conciseness should serve clarity, but here it sacrifices all useful information, making it inadequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (authentication endpoint) and lack of annotations, the description is critically incomplete. It neither explains the return value (output schema exists) nor provides any behavioral or usage context, rendering it unhelpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage, and the description adds no semantic context beyond the parameter names ('email' and 'password'). The agent gains no insight into expected formats, constraints, or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Signin' is a vague verb that barely clarifies the tool's action. It essentially restates the tool name without specifying the resource or operation context, such as authenticating a user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like signup or signout, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., account required).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states 'Toggle' without explaining what state changes occur, side effects, permissions needed, or return value. This is completely insufficient for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), but it is under-specified and not informative. It does not earn its place because it fails to convey essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool is not adequately documented for an agent to understand its purpose, effects, or output. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond its name. It does not clarify what the parameter represents (e.g., skill ID) or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Toggle Skill By Id' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what 'toggle' means (e.g., enable/disable, activate/deactivate), and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_skill_by_id' or 'delete_skill_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no context about prerequisites, expected conditions, or when toggling is appropriate over updating or deleting a skill.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Update Profile' with no mention of authentication requirements, side effects, or whether it modifies the current user's profile. This is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to be concise because it omits essential details. Under-specification is not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters with no documentation, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks any helpful context for selection or invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no information about the 5 parameters (bio, date_of_birth, gender, name, profile_image_url). An agent has no guidance on parameter meaning or formatting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Profile' merely restates the name without adding specificity. It does not indicate which profile is updated (e.g., session user or other user) and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like update_user_by_id or update_user_info_by_session_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without decision-making information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose mutation behavior. Saying 'Update' implies a write operation, but it gives no details on side effects, authorization requirements, or what happens to fields not specified (e.g., password, profile).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words), but this brevity sacrifices essential details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, zero schema description coverage, and an output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context. It is entirely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does not explain the role of user_id, constraints on email, name, or password, leaving the agent to rely solely on titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update User By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name. It does not specify what fields are updated or differentiate from many sibling update tools (e.g., update_user_info_by_session_user, update_user_status_by_session_user).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether admin rights are needed or how it differs from user-specific profile updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens after upload. The description carries the full burden but fails entirely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short ('Upload File'), it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not efficiently convey necessary information and wastes the opportunity to add value. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and a complex ecosystem of sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. The agent cannot understand the tool's role, its parameters, or its output without additional information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (process, process_in_background, file, metadata). The agent has no idea what these parameters mean or how to use them, beyond what is in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Upload File' is extremely generic and does not specify what kind of file, where it is uploaded, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'add_files_to_knowledge_batch' or 'process_file'. It is a vague purpose that fails to distinguish from many other file-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Without such information, an agent cannot make an informed choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add User To Group', implying a mutation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error conditions. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (four words), which is not conciseness but under-specification. It lacks essential details and is not front-loaded with useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description is completely inadequate. It omits return value, prerequisites, capabilities, and constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the parameters 'id' (group ID) or 'user_ids' (array of user IDs or null). The agent receives no help in understanding how to construct input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add User To Group' is a noun phrase that essentially restates the tool name. It indicates the action but lacks specificity (e.g., whether it adds one or multiple users) and does not distinguish from similar tools like 'remove_users_from_group'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'remove_users_from_group_api_v1_groups_id' or 'get_users_in_group_api_v1_groups_id'. No context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, permissions). The description carries the full burden but fails to add any context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely concise, it is under-specified for the task. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity; this description is too minimalistic to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema provided, and a vague description, the tool is not contextually complete. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool appropriately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameters. However, it could have added meaning about what is returned, but it does not. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the lack of any additional context reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Tools' is a tautology that restates the function name without specifying what 'Tools' refers to. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_tool_list_api_v1_tools_list_get or get_tools_by_id_api_v1_tools_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is too brief to infer any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely restates the tool name and provides no insight into behavior such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or side effects. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility but fails to deliver.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is very short, it is underspecified rather than concise. It fails to include necessary details, so it cannot be considered well-structured or efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what 'user valves' are, how the output relates to similar tools, or any practical usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The 'id' parameter is left completely unexplained; with 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Tools User Valves By Id' specifies a verb and resource, but fails to differentiate from closely related sibling tools like 'get_tools_valves_by_id' and 'get_tools_user_valves_spec_by_id', leaving ambiguity about what 'user valves' specifically means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many similar valve-related tools, nor are there any exclusions or context offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description offers no insights into behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, or side effects. The tool is likely a write operation but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is excessively brief and lacks necessary substance. True conciseness would provide key details efficiently, but this is undersized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (array of nested objects) and the lack of annotations or output schema details, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds zero meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to explain any parameter purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import Chats' clearly identifies the verb (import) and resource (chats), but provides no elaboration on scope or source. Among siblings, it is distinguishable from create_new_chat (singular) and other import operations, but lacks specificity about what importing entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_new_chat or import_config. There is no mention of use cases, preconditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. The tool's effect (creation, updating, deletion, idempotency) is unknown, and security/auth requirements are not mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two-word description is under-specified, not concise. Every word is wasted as it merely repeats the tool name without adding information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex input schema and lack of annotations/output schema explanation, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about return values, side effects, or how the sync operates.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't mention the 'models' parameter or explain its structure. The schema itself is present but the description adds no value beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Sync Models' is vague and tautological. It doesn't specify what syncing entails (create, update, delete) nor distinguishes from siblings like import_models or sync_functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as create_new_model, update_model_by_id, or import_models. Context is completely missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states 'Update', implying mutation, but fails to disclose authorization needs (e.g., must be the session user), side effects, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description does little to inform the agent of behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise, the description is under-informative and fails to earn its place. It could be expanded to provide meaningful context without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (1 required parameter with no schema documentation, no annotations, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the output schema, the purpose of form_data, or how to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the 'form_data' parameter. The schema shows it is an object with additionalProperties, but without any description, the agent cannot know what keys/values are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update User Info By Session User' effectively restates the tool name (tautology). It does not specify what specific user info can be updated (e.g., email, name, preferences) or how it differs from similar tools like update_profile or update_user_settings_by_session_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess among many update tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral details such as the destructive nature of the operation, required permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, the agent receives no additional insight beyond the implied deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified, lacking critical information. It is not effectively concise as it sacrifices completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to differentiate from many sibling tools and provides no context about the operation's effect or usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'By Id' but does not clarify what entity the id parameter refers to (e.g., chat ID, tag ID). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete All Tags By Id' essentially restates the tool name, making it a tautology. It does not specify what the tags are associated with or clarify the scope of 'all tags,' leaving purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like delete_tag_by_id_and_tag_name_api_v1_chats or add_tag_by_id_and_tag_name_api_v1_chats. The description lacks context for proper selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Export Tools' without describing the output format, whether it triggers a download, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but lacks structure and substance. While brevity is good, the trade-off is that it conveys very little useful information. A one-line sentence explaining the scope would improve it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the large set of sibling export tools, this description is completely insufficient for an agent to decide when to use it. It does not specify what 'tools' refers to, and without output schema details (though it exists), the agent cannot understand the tool's return value or effect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty). While a baseline of 4 might be considered for parameterless tools, the description adds no context about what is exported (e.g., all custom tools, built-in tools). Therefore, it is adequate but not informative, earning a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export Tools' is vague and fails to specify what exactly is being exported. Among many sibling export tools (e.g., export_skills, export_models), this provides no differentiation, making it unclear whether it exports custom tool definitions, tool configurations, or something else.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like export_skills, export_models, or other export functions within the same sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The minimal description implies a simple read operation but provides no explicit confirmation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but is under-specified rather than concise. It conveys no meaningful detail beyond the tool's name, making it akin to a tautology.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tool list and the presence of an output schema, the description fails to provide necessary context about when to use this tool. It does not differentiate from similar tools, which is critical for correct selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the two required parameters 'id' and 'message_id'. No information is added beyond the schema, leaving the agent without context on what these parameters represent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Channel Message' merely restates the tool name, which already includes 'get_channel_message'. It lacks specificity about what is being retrieved and does not differentiate from siblings like get_channel_messages or get_channel_message_data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_channel_messages or get_channel_message_data. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior (e.g., pagination, ordering). It does not; the schema indicates pagination parameters but the description omits any explanation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is severely under-specified, not concise. It does not earn its place by providing any useful information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool returns or how it differs from similar tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning to parameters like id, skip, or limit, leaving interpretation entirely to the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Channel Messages' is a tautology with the tool name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel_message, get_channel_thread_messages, or get_pinned_channel_messages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral details beyond the tool name. Despite being a read operation, it does not confirm safety, authorization requirements, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to add value beyond the tool name. It is under-specification, not concise. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one does not.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the tool's relative simplicity, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value or the scope of the knowledge object, and it lacks differentiation from similar tools in the large sibling list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' lacks any description; the schema has 0% coverage. The description does not clarify what the ID represents (e.g., knowledge base ID vs file ID), leaving the agent without necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Knowledge By Id' is a tautology of the tool name and does not specify what 'knowledge' refers to (e.g., knowledge base, file, or entry). It fails to distinguish this retrieval operation from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_bases' or 'get_knowledge_files_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple knowledge retrieval tools (e.g., search, list, get files), the agent has no criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether the file is deleted from storage due to delete_file parameter), permissions required, or reversibility.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse, consisting of only six words. It is not concise but rather under-specified, providing no structured information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters (two required), a default boolean, and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the operation, parameters, or return value.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or purpose of the three parameters (id, delete_file, file_id). The default for delete_file is unmentioned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove File From Knowledge By Id' is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name, which is tautological. It does not add clarity beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_file_to_knowledge_by_id or update_file_from_knowledge_by_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. 'Reset Upload Dir' does not explain what side effects occur (e.g., file deletion, irreversible changes), required permissions, or operational constraints. This is dangerously vague 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words), but this is not conciseness; it is under-specification. A good description balances brevity with completeness. Here, every sentence is missing, and the description fails to provide necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and parameters, the description should compensate by explaining what the tool does and its impact. The output schema exists but the description does not reference return values. The tool likely has significant side effects, yet no context is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since there is nothing to add, but the description could still clarify that no parameters are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reset Upload Dir' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It indicates the tool resets the upload directory but fails to specify what 'reset' entails (e.g., delete all files, clear configuration). It also does not distinguish itself from sibling reset tools like 'reset_vector_db' or 'reset_knowledge_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions mentioned. The agent has no information about whether this tool is suitable for a given scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. 'Sync Functions' fails to explain key aspects such as conflict resolution, idempotency, or effects on existing functions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but not usefully concise; it is under-specified. Every sentence should earn its place, but this single phrase lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite a complex input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description provides almost no context. The sync operation's logic, required fields, and expected behavior are entirely omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for missing parameter details. However, the description adds nothing about the 'functions' array or its fields, leaving the agent with no guidance on how to construct valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sync Functions' is vague. It does not specify the nature of syncing (e.g., push, pull, merge) nor differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_new_function' or 'update_function_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given many function-related siblings, the lack of context makes it hard for an agent to select correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Verify Url', offering no information about side effects, safety (read vs. write), or what the verification entails. With no annotations, this is a critical failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse (two words) but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information in a compact way.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain the verification process, expected input (URL source), and return value. It is completely inadequate for an agent to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, yet the description does not explain how the URL is specified (likely via the endpoint path). The description adds no meaning beyond the empty schema, and the agent is left without guidance on what URL to verify.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Verify Url' indicates the tool verifies a URL, but the meaning of 'verify' is ambiguous (e.g., accessibility, format, existence). The tool name hints at images config, but the description does not clarify the specific resource or scope, making it vague and failing to distinguish it from many sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios, leaving the agent to guess without any comparative information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a one-line description, the tool offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether adding a duplicate reaction is idempotent, whether it requires authentication, or any side effects. The description carries the full burden, which it fails to meet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (five words), which could be considered concise, but it omits essential details. It is under-specification rather than efficient communication. A good description is front-loaded, but this one lacks substance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three required parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool description is woefully incomplete. It does not mention the output schema (which exists) or any usage constraints. For a tool requiring three inputs, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three required parameters (id, message_id, name) with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The tool description does not explain any of them. For instance, 'id' likely refers to the channel ID, 'name' to the reaction emoji, but this is left to inference. The description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add Reaction To Message' clearly identifies the action (add) and resource (reaction to message), but it is somewhat tautological and fails to distinguish from siblings like 'remove_reaction_by_id_and_user_id_and_name_api_v1_channels' or 'post_new_message_api_v1_channels'. It could specify it's for a channel context, though the tool name implies that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., user must be a channel member, required permissions) or when to use 'remove_reaction...' instead. The description is silent on usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a mutation operation, potential side effects (e.g., sending verification email), required permissions, or what happens on success/failure. The single phrase 'Add User' is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), which may appear concise but actually represents underspecification. It lacks any structure or additional detail that would help the agent use the tool effectively. True conciseness would pack meaningful information into a brief form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention return values or side effects. Given the tool's complexity (creating a user with multiple fields) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It fails to cover essential context like authentication requirements or data validation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters. The five parameters (email, name, password, profile_image_url, role) are undocumented beyond their names and types in the schema. The agent receives no help understanding their purpose, constraints, or interrelations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add User' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating a user creation operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'signup_api_v1_auths_signup_post' or 'update_profile_api_v1_auths_update_profile_post', leaving ambiguity about the specific context (e.g., admin vs self-registration).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 'signup' or 'update_user'. The description does not specify prerequisites, intended user roles, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but only says 'Create', implying a write operation. It provides no details on side effects, idempotency, authentication requirements, permissions, or what happens upon successful creation (e.g., immediate indexing). The agent gains no behavioral insight beyond the bare verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It consists of a single tautological sentence that adds no value. While brevity can be positive, here it omits critical information, making the tool hard to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the knowledge management domain and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not mention output schema details, whether access_grants relates to permissions or sharing, or any post-creation effects. The agent lacks sufficient context to determine whether this tool is appropriate for their task.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema has no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain any parameters, such as 'access_grants' (a complex optional object). While 'name' and 'description' are somewhat self-explanatory, the lack of explanation for 'access_grants' leaves the agent unable to properly populate it, reducing tool usability.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Knowledge' is essentially a tautology of the tool name, offering no specification of what 'knowledge' means (e.g., a knowledge base entry, document, etc.). It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_files_to_knowledge_batch' or 'update_knowledge_by_id', making its purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned. The agent has no basis to decide when to invoke this tool over other knowledge-related tools, such as searching or updating knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description gives zero behavioral details. No mention of side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or return behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words, but the brevity sacrifices essential information. Conciseness without completeness is not valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given output schema existence and 0% parameter coverage, the description fails to provide any operational context. The agent cannot determine how to effectively use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain any parameter. The four parameters (access_grants, data, meta, title) are left completely undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Create New Note' states the action and resource, distinguishing from siblings like delete, get, update. However, it adds no new information beyond the tool name, making it essentially a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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_note_by_id or delete_note_by_id. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description gives no information about side effects, permissions, data loss risks, or any behavioral traits beyond the obvious deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but lacks substance. It essentially repeats the tool name, wasting an opportunity to provide useful context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, no annotations, and minimal description. The tool deletes entries but has no explanation of return values, error handling, or side effects. Highly incomplete for an agent to use safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'collection_name' or 'file_id' represent or their expected formats. The phrase 'Entries From Collection' hints at the parameters but provides no meaningful detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Delete Entries From Collection' states the action and resource but is generic. It does not differentiate from other delete tools like delete_file_by_id or delete_knowledge_by_id, and the name itself is more descriptive than the description.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., query_collection, process_file). No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides no behavioral information such as destructive nature, permission requirements, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but under-specified; lacks necessary detail. Not conciseness but omission.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No information on return values, side effects, or context. Output schema exists but description omits any hints about what the tool delivers.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has zero parameters, so description cannot add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no deficiency.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Delete Memory By User Id' restates the tool name without adding any specificity or differentiating from sibling tools like delete_memory_by_id. It is essentially a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_memory_by_id for memory ID deletion, reset_memory_from_vector_db for bulk reset). Missing entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks any disclosure of side effects, safety, or behavioral traits. The agent cannot infer whether this tool is idempotent, mutating, or requires specific permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (two words), but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, as it fails to convey essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single generic parameter, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'form_data' with no description (0% coverage) and the tool description adds no meaning. The agent receives no guidance on what structure or values are expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Generate Moa Response' which provides a verb and a noun, but 'Moa' is undefined and the tool is indistinguishable from other generate_* siblings without further context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_chat_tags or generate_title. The description does not specify context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether it makes an external API call, returns an image URL, or handles missing emails. The agent has no insight into side effects or dependencies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (2 words) but at the cost of informativeness. While front-loaded, the description does not provide enough value to justify its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is critically incomplete. It fails to specify what the return value is (e.g., a URL, binary data) or how to interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the required 'email' parameter or add any meaning beyond the JSON schema. For a tool with low coverage, the description should compensate but fails entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Gravatar' indicates a verb and resource but does not explain what Gravatar is (likely an avatar service). It is specific enough to distinguish from other get_ tools but lacks clarity on the outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_by_id or other get_ tools. 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits are disclosed. With no annotations, the description should cover aspects like authentication, pagination, or return format, but it does not. The user is left to infer behavior from the endpoint name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (two words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential context and information, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (audio models among many siblings) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, potential results, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but it does not need to since no parameters exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Models' is a generic restatement of the tool's purpose, failing to specify that it retrieves audio models specifically, as implied by the tool name. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_models_api_v1_models_get' or 'get_models_api_v1_images_models_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools for models. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'Get Models', hiding behavioral details like pagination, filtering, or the effect of the 'refresh' parameter. This provides minimal transparency for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but sacrifices usefulness; two words provide no actionable information. While brevity is positive, the description is under-specified for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (single optional parameter), the description is completely inadequate. It omits return structure, pagination, filtering, and the meaning of 'refresh', making it insufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any parameters. The 'refresh' parameter's purpose and impact remain entirely unexplained, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Models' is a tautology that restates the name without differentiation from many sibling tools like 'get_base_models', 'get_models_list_get', etc. It fails to specify whether this retrieves all models or a subset, leaving purpose vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_base_models' or 'get_model_by_id'. The description lacks any context about intended use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get Prompt By Command', implying a read operation but without explicit confirmation or details on side effects, output behavior, or authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise (3 words) but lacks necessary detail. It does not earn its brevity at the expense of clarity; the agent cannot infer proper usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not shown) and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the command parameter works, or how it fits among similar prompt-related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'command' parameter. It fails to define what 'command' refers to or how it should be used, leaving the agent with no guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Prompt By Command' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not specify what 'get prompt' entails (e.g., retrieve a single prompt or list) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_prompt_by_id or get_prompt_list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description gives no indication of when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, paginated, or filtered. The agent cannot infer any side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase with no structural elements. While brief, it is under-specified and fails to provide essential information, making it more of a missing specification than a concise summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 optional parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover the tool's operation, expected inputs, or return value context, making it nearly useless for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 optional parameters (page, query, order_by, direction) with no description coverage (0%). The description does not explain any parameter meaning, so the agent must rely solely on parameter names, which are ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Shared Session User Chat List' clearly indicates a list retrieval for shared session user chats, but it does not specify what 'shared' means or differentiate it from sibling tools like get_session_user_chat_list (likely for own chats) or get_archived_session_user_chat_list. The purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explanation of context, exclusions, or comparison to sibling chat list tools, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action and resource. It does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or response shape (though output schema exists). The description adds no value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short, it is under-specified and provides no substantive information. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here it introduces ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description lacks context about how this tool fits into the CRUD operations for skills. It does not help the agent differentiate from similar read tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameter 'id' lacks any description in both schema and tool description. The description does not clarify the parameter beyond its name, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Skill By Id' is a tautology, restating the tool name without adding any additional information. It does not distinguish the tool's purpose from siblings like 'get_skills' or 'get_skill_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'get_skills' (list all) or 'get_skill_list'. There are no context clues for optimal usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden but only states 'Get', implying a read operation. It does not mention any behavioral traits such as authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-informative. Conciseness should not sacrifice meaning; here it omits crucial context, making it ineffective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how to use it. The tool's purpose is entirely unclear, leaving the agent with insufficient information to decide when and how to invoke it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no explanation of what 'id' represents (e.g., tool ID, user ID). The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Tools User Valves Spec By Id' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what 'Tools User Valves Spec' means. It does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_tools_valves_spec_by_id' or 'get_tools_user_valves_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling 'get' tools, there is no indication of the specific context or prerequisites for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states a retrieval action but does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, side effects, or any constraints. The agent cannot infer safety or prerequisites from this description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (6 words), but it is underspecified rather than concise. It lacks essential details and does not earn its brevity by being loaded with information. Front-loading is not relevant when content is minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover pagination, filtering, sorting, or what the result list contains. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions 'user_id' implicitly but provides no meaning for page, query, order_by, or direction. The other 4 parameters are completely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a verb ('Get') and resource ('User Chat List') with a filter ('by User Id'), which is clear. However, it is essentially a paraphrase of the tool name and does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_session_user_chat_list_api_v1_chats_list_get or get_user_chats_api_v1_chats_all_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for listing chats (e.g., get_all_user_chats_in_db_api_v1_chats_all_db_get), but no mention of scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention if the operation is read-only, requires special permissions, or how it handles invalid input. The description is essentially just the name, offering no transparency. Score 1.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It fails to provide necessary information and does not earn its place as a useful description. Score 2 for being minimal but insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter and an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or any other context. Combined with no annotations and no parameter details, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly. Score 1.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, adding no meaning beyond the schema's bare type and requirement. Without any explanation of what 'id' refers to (e.g., group ID), the parameter semantics are completely inadequate. Score 1.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Users In Group' identifies the verb and resource, but it is vague: it does not specify whether it returns user IDs, user objects, or just counts, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_group_by_id_api_v1_groups_id' or 'add_user_to_group_api_v1_groups_id'. It is clear but lacks sibling differentiation, fitting score 3.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for groups (e.g., 'add_user_to_group', 'remove_users_from_group', 'get_group_by_id'), the description does not help an agent decide which to invoke. Score 2 due to lack of usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'Ldap Auth', disclosing nothing about side effects (e.g., session creation), success/failure outcomes, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two words, but this results in under-specification. While conciseness is positive, the lack of structure and detail harms usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an authentication tool with no annotations and a simple schema, the description fails to cover context like return values (output schema exists but not described), error cases, or state changes. It is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. The parameter names 'user' and 'password' are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool does not clarify if 'user' is a username or email, nor any formatting constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Ldap Auth' indicates an LDAP authentication operation, but it is vague and does not specify the exact action (e.g., authenticate, login). It fails to differentiate from sibling auth tools like signin or get_session_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The agent receives no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as signin or other auth endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature or side effects. It does not mention that querying is non-destructive or any required permissions, leaving the agent without crucial context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of completeness. Two words provide no structure or meaningful content, making it underspecified rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or behavior, making it nearly useless for an agent to correctly invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description provides zero information about the 'content' and 'k' parameters. The agent cannot infer that 'content' is the query text and 'k' likely controls the number of results.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Query Memory' indicates a verb and resource, but is vague. It does not clarify whether it performs semantic search or simple retrieval, nor how it differs from sibling 'get_memories' which likely lists all memories.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_memories' or 'add_memory'. The description fails to specify that it should be used for content-based memory search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it merely repeats the tool name. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, returns paginated results, or requires any permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise, the two-word description is under-specified and provides no front-loaded information. It fails to earn its place by omitting critical details about the tool's functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not cover the tool's behavior or expected output, even though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not mention any of the six parameters (query, view_option, etc.), leaving their meaning and purpose entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search Notes' states the verb and resource, indicating the tool searches notes. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling search tools like search_files or search_user_chats, lacking specificity for the AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not include any contextual clues about its intended use case or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Send', implying a mutation, but does not specify whether this is a write operation, what side effects occur, or if authentication is required. The lack of detail leaves the agent guessing about safety and impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (6 words), but this brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. It fails to earn its place by providing any actionable information beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 4 required parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a description that adds no context. For a tool of this complexity (nested objects, event semantics), the description is grossly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 required parameters (id, message_id, data, type) are explained. The description itself adds zero semantic value—it does not describe what each parameter represents or how they should be used. The agent must infer from names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Send Chat Message Event By Id' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not clarify what constitutes a 'chat message event' versus a regular message. Among siblings like post_new_message_api_v1_channels and update_chat_message_by_id_api_v1_chats, it fails to 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives such as post_new_message_api_v1_channels or update_chat_message_by_id_api_v1_chats, nor does it 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits. It fails to indicate whether the operation is destructive, additive, or requires special permissions, leaving the agent without critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence long, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential information about the tool's behavior and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complex input schema with nested objects and defaults, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no explanation of the operation's effect, return value, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'TERMINAL_SERVER_CONNECTIONS' parameter and its nested fields (e.g., enabled, auth_type) are entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set Terminal Servers Config' specifies the action (set) and resource (terminal servers config), but lacks detail on whether it updates or replaces the config, and does not distinguish from similar siblings like 'set_tool_servers_config'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'get_terminal_servers_config' for reading or other set tools for different configurations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The three-word description provides no information about side effects, permissions, or immediate effects of toggling active status.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While extremely short, the description sacrifices clarity for brevity, leaving critical gaps in understanding. It is under-specified rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description should at least explain the toggle effect (e.g., enabling/disabling) and possible states. It fails to provide enough context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'prompt_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description adds no meaning beyond implying it is the ID of the prompt to toggle.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Toggle Prompt Active' is vague; it does not specify what 'active' means or what state is being toggled. It fails to distinguish from other prompt update tools like 'update_prompt_by_id' or 'set_prompt_version'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 'update_prompt_by_id' or 'set_prompt_version'. There is no context about prerequisites or constraints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'Update Config', implying mutation but no details on scope (e.g., persistent changes, auth requirements, rollback possibility). This insufficiently informs the agent of side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, it is under-specified rather than concise. A single vague phrase fails to convey essential information, wasting the user's time through ambiguity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (33 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It offers no guidance on parameter relationships, expected outcomes, or error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 33 parameters (e.g., AUTOMATIC1111_API_AUTH, ENABLE_IMAGE_GENERATION). The agent must infer their roles from names alone, which is error-prone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Update Config' is extremely vague. It does not specify that this tool updates image configuration, especially critical given siblings like 'update_admin_config', 'update_audio_config', and 'update_task_config'. The tool name suggests image config, but description omits this.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many 'update_config' siblings, the description provides no context on prerequisites, when not to use, or which specific config it targets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., required permissions, side effects, idempotency). Full burden falls on description, which provides no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single short sentence is technically concise but severely under-specified, providing almost no useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and a mutation operation, the description is grossly incomplete. No explanation of embedding config, required parameters, or effects of the update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 8 parameters with 0% description coverage. Description adds no meaning or context to parameters, failing to compensate for lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Update Embedding Config' states verb+resource but adds no specificity beyond the tool name. Does not distinguish from sibling tools like update_rag_config. Acceptable but vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_embedding_config or update_rag_config. Leaves agent to infer context from name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., folder must exist), or what happens to the folder state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words), which is efficient, but it is too minimal to be useful. It sacrifices substance for brevity, so it earns a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling folder tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the effect of updating 'is_expanded', how to integrate with folder operations, or the expected response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter meaning. It hints at 'id' and 'is_expanded' but does not explain the boolean field (e.g., true means expanded, false collapsed). The raw schema already provides type, but the description adds no semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Folder Is Expanded By Id' is almost a tautology of the tool name, providing no additional meaning. It does not explain what 'is_expanded' means or how it affects folder behavior, leaving the purpose unclear even among sibling folder tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other folder update tools (e.g., update_folder_name_by_id). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 'Update', implying a write operation, but discloses no behavioral traits (e.g., overwrite behavior, side effects, auth requirements).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at 3 words, but the description adds no value beyond the tool name. It is under-specified rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 13 parameters, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the update entails, which fields are updatable, or any constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage for 13 parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning or usage hints, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Ldap Server' clearly states the verb and resource, but is a tautology of the tool name. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_ldap_config' or 'get_ldap_server'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include other LDAP-related operations, but no exclusions or context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description is a tautology that adds no behavioral details (e.g., idempotence, permission requirements, side effects, return value structure).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise but at the expense of informativeness. The single sentence essentially restates the tool name, providing no new information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two required params (one complex), no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to cover essential context. Does not explain input format, behavior, or typical use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description offers no explanation of parameters. 'access_grants' is an array of objects with additionalProperties, but the description does not clarify its structure or semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly indicates it updates access for a prompt by ID, but 'access' is vague; could refer to permissions, sharing, or something else. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_prompt_by_id but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., update_prompt_by_id, update_prompt_metadata). Does not specify context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' without explaining side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only four words, which is underspecified for a tool with 11 parameters. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (11 params, 4 required, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is severely lacking. It fails to explain the tool's purpose or behavior adequately.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the 11 parameters. The agent has no guidance on how to use fields like access_grants, data, or meta.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Prompt By Id' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (prompt), but does not differentiate from sibling update tools like update_prompt_metadata or update_prompt_access. It leaves the scope vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_prompt_metadata or update_prompt_access. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description offers no behavioral transparency beyond the verb 'Update'. With no annotations provided, the agent cannot infer side effects, whether the update is incremental or full replacement, required permissions, or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words) but sacrifices necessary content. It is front-loaded but provides no meaningful information beyond the tool name. For a complex tool with many parameters, this is under-specification, not effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the update does to the RAG configuration, what the response contains, or any important contextual details required for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 57 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description fails to explain any parameter meaning, grouping, or usage. Parameter names like CHUNK_SIZE are somewhat self-explanatory, but for many others (e.g., DATALAB_MARKER_FORCE_OCR) the agent has no guidance in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Rag Config' is minimal but indicates the action (update) and resource (RAG config). However, it lacks specificity about what exactly is updated or the scope, and it does not differentiate from other update tools that might target different aspects of the system.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, when not to use it, or suggest alternatives such as get_rag_config for reading first. The agent is left without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but there are no annotations to supplement. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether existing grants are replaced or merged), authorization needs, or whether the operation is reversible. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and fails critically.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, but it is under-specified. True conciseness would provide needed information in few words; this lacks substance, making it insufficient rather than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema parameter descriptions, and a mutating operation, the description is woefully incomplete. The agent cannot infer correct usage, parameter formats, or behavioral outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not mention that 'id' is the tool ID or what structure 'access_grants' should follow (e.g., list of objects with user/role fields). The schema itself has no titles or descriptions, leaving the agent completely in the dark.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Tool Access By Id' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is essentially a tautology of the function name and does not specify what 'access' means (e.g., user/group permissions). It distinguishes from sibling 'update_tools_by_id_api_v1_tools_id' only by the word 'access', yet lacks detail on the nature of the update.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_tools_by_id'. There is no context on prerequisites (e.g., required permissions) or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, authentication requirements, side effects). The agent has no information about the tool's impact or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It does not provide enough information to be considered well-structured; it lacks context and fails to earn its place by offering value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, output schema present, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the update behavior, required fields, or return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (only id__path has a description). The description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the meaning of fields like 'access_grants', 'content', and 'meta' unexplained. The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Update Tools By Id', which clearly indicates the verb (update), resource (tools), and qualifier (by ID). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_tool_access_by_id or update_tools_user_valves, making it only moderately clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not specify that this updates core tool fields while other tools handle access or valves. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add Tag', implying a write operation, but omits details on idempotency, permissions, error handling, or response format. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, but conciseness is not achieved because essential information is missing. A concise description would pack more meaning into few words, but here it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, low schema coverage, and an output schema whose details are unknown, the description fails to provide necessary context. It does not explain the resource being modified, the effect of the action, or any preconditions. The agent is left guessing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'Id' and 'Name' but adds no meaning beyond the schema titles. It does not clarify what the 'id' refers to (e.g., chat ID) or what 'name' represents (tag name).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add Tag By Id And Tag Name' essentially restates the tool name without clarifying the action's subject or object. It does not specify whether it adds a tag to a chat, creates a new tag association, or something else. The sibling 'get_chat_tags_by_id' hints at a chat-tag relationship, but the description itself is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_user_to_group' or 'delete_tag_by_id_and_tag_name_api_v1_chats'. The description lacks context on prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., irreversibility, cascading deletes), idempotency, or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is under-specified. It lacks essential details about the tool's operation, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having only one parameter and an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It does not specify that deletion is permanent, what conditions apply, or any return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description should compensate but fails to indicate what the 'id' represents (e.g., UUID, numeric ID).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Note By Id' is a tautology, simply restating the tool name. It does not explain what a 'note' is in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note_by_id' or 'delete_knowledge_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, permissions, or context for deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or requires authentication. The user has no idea what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly brief (two words) and lacks the minimum needed structure. Conciseness is under-specification; it does not earn its place as a useful addition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and a vague description, the tool is critically incomplete. A user cannot determine what the tool outputs (file, data, stream) or how to handle the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to guidelines, baseline is 3. The description does not add any value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Download Db' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like download_chat_as_pdf, and lacks details on what 'Db' refers to (e.g., full database, table, backup).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state any prerequisites, context, or cases where this tool should be avoided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or whether it only returns DM channels. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short (5 words), it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure or useful information, making it insufficient for agent understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., channel details, error codes). Given the tool's sensitivity (DMs) and single parameter, the description is incomplete and fails to cover edge cases or expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the user_id parameter beyond what is already in the schema. The param is not explained (e.g., what format, what happens if invalid), so the description provides no added value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Dm Channel By User Id' is essentially a tautology of the tool name. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_channel_by_id or get_all_channels, providing only a restatement of the name with no additional context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify whether to use this for DM channels specifically or how it differs from get_channel_by_id, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely states 'Get', which implies a read operation. It does not describe error handling, authentication needs, or the nature of the returned spec. No contradictions with annotations (none provided).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (5 words) but fails to convey essential information. It under-specifies the tool's function, making it more a placeholder than a concise explanation. Not appropriately front-loaded with key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the tool's role (e.g., retrieving a schema/configuration for valves) or how it relates to other valve-related tools. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'id' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no semantic info about the id parameter (e.g., format, example, or type of ID). This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Tools Valves Spec By Id' is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name, providing no additional context. It fails to explain what a 'valves spec' is or how it differs from sibling tools like get_tools_valves_by_id or get_tools_user_valves_spec_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Sibling tools with similar purposes (e.g., get_tools_valves_by_id) are not mentioned, nor are use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or response structure. For a mutation operation, this omission is significant.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified, lacking essential context. This is not concise communication but rather incomplete specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 required params, one being a complex object), the description is incomplete. With no parameter details, annotations, or usage guidance, the agent is ill-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'id' and 'form_data'. The 'form_data' object is particularly opaque; the agent has no guidance on its expected structure or content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Function User Valves By Id' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no additional clarification on what 'Function User Valves' are or how they differ from similar resources. This is a tautology, offering minimal purpose clarity beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool or when to prefer alternatives like update_function_valves_by_id. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., persistence, authentication requirements, side effects). The agent has no information beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. It does not front-load useful details; it is merely a label.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple schema and presence of an output schema, the description is still incomplete. It lacks context about what a memory is, how it relates to other tools, and what the response contains. The large sibling set amplifies the need for differentiation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the 'content' parameter or its meaning, constraints, or expected format. The agent must rely solely on the schema's property title, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add Memory' clearly states the verb and resource, but it is minimal and does not differentiate from many sibling 'add' tools (e.g., add_user, add_tag). It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 query_memory or delete_memory. The description provides no context for choosing it over other add tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not clarify behavioral traits like whether archiving is reversible, what state the chat enters, or required permissions. The description carries the full burden but provides minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence, but conciseness comes at the cost of completeness. While it wastes no words, it lacks essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing operation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the effects of archiving, return values (despite an output schema existing, it is not described), or side effects. More context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema provides (type string, title Id). With 0% schema description coverage, this is a critical gap; the agent cannot determine what ID refers to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Archive Chat By Id' is a tautology, essentially restating the tool name without adding meaningful context. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'delete_chat_by_id' or 'archive_all_chats'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a chat should be archived versus deleted or unarchived. Prerequisites or conditions for archiving are not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits like side effects, security risks, or execution environment. It provides none, leaving the agent unsure if execution is safe, sandboxed, or irreversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. Important details are omitted, making it minimally valuable despite brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description should at least hint at the execution environment, return behavior, or potential effects. It fails to provide any contextual completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the 'code' parameter beyond its name. It does not explain format, language, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute Code' clearly indicates the action (execute) and resource (code), but it is too vague to distinguish from the sibling tool 'format_code' which also deals with code. It lacks specificity about what execution entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to execute code versus format it. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a minimal description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether it downloads a file, the output format, required permissions, or side effects. The agent has no information beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief, but not helpfully concise. It provides almost no information, making it nearly as uninformative as the LOW example 'Process'. Two words do not convey useful guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of many sibling export tools and an output schema, the description should clarify what 'Config' refers to and what the output contains. It fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond the name, but parameter semantics dimension is satisfied at baseline since no parameters need explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export Config' essentially restates the tool name, providing no additional context about what specific configuration is exported. Compared to sibling export tools (e.g., export_models, export_skills), it fails to differentiate itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other export tools or the import_config counterpart. The description gives no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to disclose whether this tool modifies chat state, requires authentication, or has side effects. 'Generate' implies creation, but details are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter, the description is severely incomplete. Agents will struggle to use this tool correctly without additional documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'form_data' with 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. The parameter type is a generic object with additionalProperties, leaving agents unable to infer required fields or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate Chat Tags' conveys a basic action, but lacks specificity about the context (e.g., which chat, how tags are generated). Among siblings like 'add_tag_by_id_and_tag_name', the purpose is somewhat distinct but not clearly differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manual tag addition. The description does not specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description gives no behavioral information. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or what side effects (if any) occur. The single phrase is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words) but at the expense of clarity. It omits necessary context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of parameters and output schema, the description should explain what admin details are returned. It does not. The presence of similar sibling tools (e.g., 'get_admin_config') makes this incompleteness more critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the description fails to clarify what 'Admin Details' encompasses, reducing the score. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Admin Details' is vague and does not specify what kind of admin details are retrieved (e.g., user info, config, permissions). It fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'get_admin_config' which suggests a different scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_admin_config' or 'get_session_user', nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination behavior, or response format. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects from the description alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence, but it is under-specified. It omits essential details that could be added without verbosity, such as parameter explanations or usage notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of multiple sibling tools, 4 optional parameters, and an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain pagination, filtering, or the response structure, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 parameters (page, query, order_by, direction) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning, valid values, or default behavior, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Archived Session User Chat List' clearly indicates the tool retrieves archived chats for a session user, distinguishing it from non-archived list tools like get_session_user_chat_list. However, it does not specify what 'session user' means or how this tool differs from similar archive-related siblings like get_user_archived_chats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_session_user_chat_list, get_user_archived_chats). The agent receives no context on prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that this is a read operation, any authentication or permission requirements, or what 'status' implies (e.g., processing state, completion).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words), but it lacks essential details. Conciseness should not sacrifice necessary information; this is under-specification, not efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what a file process is, what status values are returned, or how the 'stream' parameter affects behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage, and the description adds no information about the parameters 'id' and 'stream'. The agent cannot infer their purpose or constraints from the description or schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get File Process Status' is minimally clear about what the tool does (retrieve status of a file processing operation), but it adds no value over the tool name itself and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like get_file_by_id or get_file_content_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative file-related tools. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Get Functions' suggesting read operation, but no details on pagination, filtering, or side effects. Insufficient for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but lacks substance. Conciseness is not beneficial when it causes under-specification; a balance is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (many sibling tools, no annotations, no output schema in description), the tool is severely incomplete. Agent cannot determine return format or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 applies; no further information needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Functions' is vague; does not specify scope or what 'functions' refers to. Sibling tool 'get_function_list_api_v1_functions_list_get' exists, implying potential overlap, but no distinction is provided.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Agent has no basis to choose this over similar retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It states only 'Get Knowledge Files By Id' without disclosing pagination, ordering, filtering capabilities, or any side effects (all of which are present in the parameters).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) but sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded but lacks substance, making it minimally adequate for a simple tool but poor for one with multiple parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters (including pagination and ordering) and no output schema details or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not help the agent understand the tool's full capabilities or return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to parameters like query, view_option, order_by, direction, or page. For a tool with 6 parameters, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Knowledge Files By Id' is a near-tautology of the tool name, providing no additional context about what constitutes a 'knowledge file' or how this differs from other knowledge-related tools like get_knowledge_by_id or search_knowledge_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many siblings (e.g., search_knowledge_files, get_knowledge_by_id). The agent must infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation via 'Get', but without annotations, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, or any side effects. The absence of annotations places the full burden on the description, which fails to provide adequate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but this brevity sacrifices critical information. It is not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description does not hint at the structure or meaning of the returned server data. Given the abundance of LDAP-related sibling tools, the lack of context makes the tool's role ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully defines the expected input. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Ldap Server' is a tautology of the tool name 'get_ldap_server_api_v1_auths_admin_config_ldap_server_ge', adding no additional meaning. It fails to specify what aspect of the LDAP server is retrieved or how it relates to similar tools like get_ldap_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_ldap_config, update_ldap_server, or update_ldap_config. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get Models' with no mention of pagination, filtering, authentication, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but underspecified; it does not provide useful information beyond the tool name. It fails to earn its place by adding value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 optional parameters, many sibling tools, and an output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain what models are returned, how to filter, or differentiate from similar endpoints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 6 optional parameters. The schema itself has no descriptions, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Models' specifies the verb and resource, but it is minimal and does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_models_api_v1_models_get or get_base_models_api_v1_models_base_get, which also relate to retrieving models.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as retrieving a single model or base models. The description lacks context for typical use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it states nothing beyond the action. No mention of permissions, side effects, rate limits, or response format is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at five words, which is efficient but under-specified. It could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an existing output schema, the description omits essential context about what a 'shared chat' is, whether the current user needs to own it, and what the response contains. It is insufficient for an agent to reliably use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'share_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what it represents, its format, or how to obtain it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Shared Chat By Id' is a clear verb+resource combination, but it merely restates the tool name without adding nuance. It does not differentiate this tool from other chat retrieval tools like 'get_chat_by_id_api_v1_chats' or 'get_shared_session_user_chat_list_api_v1_chats_shared_ge'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides zero behavioral details beyond the tool name. With no annotations, the agent cannot infer whether this is a read operation, if data is paginated, filtered scoped to the user's permissions, or the shape of the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While short, the description is under-specified. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information; a single two-word phrase does not adequately inform the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and zero parameters, the description should clarify the scope (e.g., all skills, user-accessible skills). It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description carries minimal burden. However, it adds no value beyond the schema: it does not explain implicit behavior like default filters or output format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Skills' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_skill_list_api_v1_skills_list_get or get_skill_by_id_api_v1_skills_id, leaving ambiguity about what exactly is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or comparisons to other skills tools, making it unclear whether this is the right choice for listing vs. detailed view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behaviors such as whether authentication is required, what data is returned (all chats, active only, etc.), or if it is read-only. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is not necessarily concise—it is under-specified. It lacks front-loaded key details about what the tool does. Every sentence should earn its place; here the single sentence is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, an output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is critically incomplete. It provides no information about the return format, scope, or any prerequisites. The agent cannot reliably use this tool based on the description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, the burden is low. However, it could clarify the implicit scope (e.g., current user's chats). Score 3 as a neutral baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get User Chats' is vague and does not distinguish this tool from numerous sibling tools like get_session_user_chat_list, get_all_user_chats_in_db, get_user_pinned_chats, etc. It lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., current user, all users, active chats).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar functions, the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not state side effects (none expected), required authentication, or any limits. The agent has no information on how this tool behaves beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but fails to add value beyond the tool name. It is under-specified rather than concise; a few more sentences would improve usefulness without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it lacks context about the purpose, scope, and relationship to siblings. For a tool with many similar functions, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to reliably select it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. According to the guidelines, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is essentially a repetition of the tool name ('Get User Info By Session User'), providing no elaboration on what specific user info is returned. It barely differentiates from sibling tools like get_user_by_id, but the distinction is implied rather than stated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_user_by_id or get_user_info_by_id. The description does not mention authentication prerequisites or context (e.g., that it requires a valid session).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The agent receives no context beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words) but at the expense of clarity and completeness. It fails to provide necessary details, reflecting under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, an output schema with no details, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not help the agent understand the tool's purpose or usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% with no property descriptions. The description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, order_by, direction, page), leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search Users' is a concise verb+resource combination that clearly indicates the tool searches for users. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'search_user_chats_api_v1_chats_search_get' or 'search_files_api_v1_files_search_get', lacking specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes multiple search tools (e.g., search_user_chats, search_notes) without any criteria for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Set' implies a mutation operation, but no details are given about whether changes take effect immediately, require permissions, or have side effects. Transparency is minimal beyond the implied write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short—a single phrase. While concise, it is under-specified and fails to earn its place by providing useful information. A tool with 15 parameters requires more than a generic statement to be minimally helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (15 required parameters, no parameter descriptions, no annotations), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the configuration, the expected behavior, or provide any example. The output schema exists but is not referenced. This severely limits autonomous usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (parameter titles only, no descriptions). The tool description adds no information about any of the 15 parameters. The agent receives no help understanding what values are valid for fields like CODE_EXECUTION_ENGINE or ENABLE_CODE_EXECUTION. This is a critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set Code Execution Config' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating this tool updates the code execution configuration. However, it merely repeats the tool name without adding any specificity about what aspects of config are set. Purpose is adequate but not enhanced beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling configuration tools (e.g., set_banners, set_connections_config). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, alternative tools, or scenarios. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks information on whether the update is full replacement or partial, required permissions, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely brief but under-specified; it is not concise in a helpful manner at the expense of crucial details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the input schema (2 nested objects with many fields) and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete for safe and accurate use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
0% schema coverage; description adds no explanation of parameters beyond their titles, leaving the agent to infer from field names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Audio Config' clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (audio config), distinguishing it from get_audio_config but not from many other update tools with similar patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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, no conditions for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is destructive, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. The description is minimal and uninformative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence) but lacks substance. It does not earn its place as it provides almost no useful information, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (three required parameters, mutation tool, existing output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits return value information, side effects, and any context that would help an agent understand the tool's impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has three required parameters (id, message_id, content) with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description adds no semantic context, leaving the agent to guess the meaning and constraints of the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Chat Message By Id' merely restates the tool name without adding specificity or distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_chat_by_id' or 'update_message_by_id_api_v1_channels'. It is a tautology, lacking differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether it overwrites or merges, required permissions, side effects, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (5 words), but this comes at the cost of missing critical information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation, object parameter, output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the operation, parameters, or behavior, making it nearly unusable for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'id' and 'form_data'. It does not explain what 'id' refers to or the expected structure of 'form_data', leaving the agent with minimal guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Function Valves By Id' clearly identifies the verb (Update) and resource (Function Valves), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_function_by_id. However, it does not explain what 'valves' are, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_function_valves_by_id or update_function_user_valves_by_id. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update is additive or replaces existing access, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only 4 words, which is too brief to be useful. It lacks structure and fails to provide key information, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain the effect of the update, the structure of access_grants, or how the tool interacts with skills. The tool's purpose is unclear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameters 'id' and 'access_grants' are not elaborated, and 'access_grants' with additionalProperties is left entirely undefined.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Update Skill Access By Id', which is a verb+resource combination. However, it is vague and does not differentiate from the similar 'update_skill_by_id' sibling. The word 'access' is ambiguous (e.g., permissions, grants) and not clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus similar update tools like 'update_skill_by_id'. The description does not provide context for when access updates are needed or what the prerequisites are.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states an action without disclosing effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'valves' are. The output schema exists but is not leveraged to explain behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (4 words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential detail and does not justify its brevity with completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with a nested object parameter, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what valves are or how the update differs from other tool update operations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain what 'id' or 'form_data' represent, nor what valid values for form_data might be.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource pattern ('Update Tools Valves By Id'), but 'valves' is ambiguous without context. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like update_tools_by_id_api_v1_tools_id, which also updates a tool by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as update_tools_by_id or get_tools_valves_by_id. No usage context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not reveal side effects (e.g., whether the update is additive or overwrites, or if only the session user's own status can be changed). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short ('Update User Status By Session User'), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It does not front-load critical information or earn its place. A better description would include parameter context or usage hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover what the tool returns, authentication needs, or the effect of the update. For a tool with three optional parameters, this is completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the JSON schema does not describe the parameters' meanings. The description does not mention any parameters or explain how to use status_emoji, status_expires_at, or status_message. It provides no value to help the agent understand parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update User Status By Session User', indicating the verb (update), resource (user status), and scope (by session user). However, it is vague and does not specify the aspects of status that can be updated (e.g., emoji, expiration, message) or distinguish it clearly from other update tools like update_user_by_id. The name itself provides some clarity, but the description adds little.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no indication of prerequisites, such as authentication requirements, or when not to use it. Among many sibling tools, this lacks any usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, what it returns, whether it downloads a file, or any side effects. The description is entirely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too sparse; 'Export Models' is under-specified and lacks essential context. Conciseness does not justify omitting necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters but an output schema, the description should still clarify scope (e.g., 'all models' vs 'user's models'). It does not, leaving ambiguity among many sibling export tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The description does not need to compensate for parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export Models' is a generic verb+noun, but it does not differentiate from sibling export tools like export_skills, export_tools, etc. It lacks specificity about what exactly is exported (e.g., all models, user's models, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative export or model tools. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and description fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only, pagination, or authorization needs beyond the name 'Get'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise but under-specified; does not earn its place with useful detail beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameter descriptions and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete; output schema exists but does not compensate for lack of input clarity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain parameters 'id' and 'message_id'; misses opportunity to add meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Channel Message Data' is clear as a verb+noun but vague; does not specify what 'data' includes or distinguish from sibling tools like get_channel_message_api_v1_channels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 get_channel_message_api_v1_channels or get_channel_messages_api_v1_channels; lacks context on prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Get Models' without any behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned, or any side effects. The burden is on the description, which is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is not appropriately sized; it should include more context to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It leaves the agent without essential information to select or invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The baseline is 3; however, the description could have added value by mentioning what models are retrieved, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Models' is vague and does not specify the type of models. Given the name includes 'images', it likely refers to image models, but this is not clarified. With multiple sibling tools like get_models_api_v1_audio_models_get and get_models_api_v1_models_get, the description fails to distinguish itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over similar tools, such as get_models_api_v1_models_list_get or get_models_api_v1_models_get. There is no mention of context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description merely repeats the tool's name without disclosing behavioral aspects such as pagination, ordering, or effect on data. It fails to add value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short sentence), but it is overly minimal for a tool with 3 optional parameters. It sacrifices necessary information for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and the complexity of chat lists with optional filters, the description is far from complete. It does not clarify what the output contains or how parameters affect results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention parameters. While parameter names and defaults are present in the schema, the description adds no additional meaning, leaving the agent uninformed about parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Session User Chat List' clearly indicates the action (get) and resource (session user chat list), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools such as get_archived_session_user_chat_list or get_user_chat_list_by_user_id, which 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_archived_session_user_chat_list or get_user_chat_list_by_tag_name. The description lacks explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, pagination, permissions). The agent gets no insight beyond the minimal name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but this is due to under-specification rather than efficient communication. It lacks structure and necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three optional parameters and a likely complex endpoint, the description provides no information about output, filtering, or usage. It is completely inadequate for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description ignores all three parameters (query, view_option, page). No meaning is added beyond the schema field names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Skill List' clearly indicates a listing operation, but it does not differentiate from siblings like get_skills_api_v1_skills. The verb+resource structure is present, but lacking specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (2 words) but critically under-specified. While concise, it fails to convey essential information, making it incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the vague description, the tool's purpose and context are not sufficiently defined. It is incomplete even for a simple no-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage; baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning but no further information is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Status' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what status is retrieved (e.g., API health, retrieval system status). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like healthcheck_health_get or get_rag_config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as healthcheck_health_get or other status-related endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation but does not explicitly state it, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but it sacrifices informativeness. Conciseness is not beneficial when it omits essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain what 'valves' are or what the tool returns. The agent is left without sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose or result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name 'id', merely restating 'By Id'. The agent gains no understanding of what the ID represents or how to use it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Tools Valves By Id' indicates a retrieval action for valves of a tool by ID, but it does not clarify what 'valves' are. It is somewhat clear but lacks specificity, especially considering sibling tools like 'get_tools_valves_spec_by_id' which suggest different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_tools_valves_spec_by_id' or 'get_tools_user_valves_by_id'. The agent receives no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, side effects, or return format. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it contains a typo ('Permissisions') and lacks critical information. It does not earn its place as it fails to provide sufficient context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify which user's permissions are retrieved, the response structure, or any preconditions. The presence of many similar sibling tools makes this lack of detail more severe.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the tool gets user permissions, but since there are no parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get User Permissisions' and the tool name indicate it retrieves user permissions, but it does not specify which user (e.g., current session user or a specific user). There is a sibling tool 'get_default_user_permissions' which retrieves default permissions for new users, but this tool lacks any distinguishing information. The typo 'Permissisions' reduces clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_default_user_permissions' or other user-related tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description simply repeats the tool name and does not mention any side effects, prerequisites, or return characteristics (e.g., whether it returns raw data or a URL, authorization requirements). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (a single phrase), but it is under-specified. While brevity is valued, the description does not contain enough information to be useful. A longer description that adds context would be more appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is entirely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the profile image is provided (e.g., URL, base64), or any error conditions. The description is incomplete for effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (the parameter 'user_id' lacks a description in the schema). The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'By Id'. It does not clarify what the user_id represents, its expected format, or how to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'User Profile Image', and the 'By Id' clarifies the input parameter. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_user_by_id' (which retrieves user info) or 'get_model_profile_image' (which retrieves a model's profile image). However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., URL, binary), which adds some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No description is provided indicating when to use this tool vs alternatives. Among the many sibling tools for getting user data (e.g., get_user_by_id, get_user_info_by_id), there is no guidance on when to choose this one. The agent must infer based solely on the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether import overwrites, requires authorization, or has side effects. The burden is entirely on the description, which fails to provide any transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is overly concise to the point of being under-specified. It sacrifices necessary clarity for brevity, providing no structured information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema and the complexity of importing models (with a required array of objects), the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the import behavior, return value, or model expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'models' is an array of objects with additionalProperties true, but the schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning. The agent gets no information about expected object structure, required fields, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Import Models' clearly states the verb (import) and resource (models), and distinguishes from siblings like export_models. However, it lacks detail on the import source or format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_new_model or sync_models. No context for when to choose import over other model creation methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the literal meaning. There is no mention of pagination, authentication requirements, side effects, or what the output contains. With no annotations to compensate, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It does not earn its place as it provides minimal information, falling short of a minimally viable description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters, output schema, many sibling tools), the description is woefully incomplete. It omits details on pagination, response structure, and how it relates to knowledge bases, failing to provide a complete context for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the two parameters (query and page) beyond what the schema already shows. With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but completely ignores parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Search' and resource 'Knowledge Files', making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'search_knowledge_bases_api_v1_knowledge_search_get' or 'search_files_api_v1_files_search_get', missing a chance to clarify scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use search_knowledge_bases or search_files. The description lacks any context, exclusions, or examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist and the description provides no behavioral details such as whether this performs a partial or full update, permissions required, error handling, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that merely restates the tool name. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to earn its place by providing additional value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters, no output schema details, and a complex ecosystem of sibling tools, the description is far too minimal to adequately inform an agent about correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to any of the 9 parameters. Critical fields like 'data', 'name', and 'group_ids' are left entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Channel By Id' clearly indicates the action (update) and resource (channel by ID), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_channel_webhook' or other channel update operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create, delete, or get channel tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites or appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a mutation ('Update') but provides no behavioral details such as side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or error handling. The presence of an output schema is not acknowledged, leaving the agent uninformed about the response.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words) but lacks substance. While concise, it does not earn its place by providing meaningful information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 2-parameter tool with a free-form object and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. It omits the purpose of user valves, the structure of form_data, and any behavioral context, making it inadequate for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. 'form_data' is an untyped object with no explanation of expected keys or values, despite the schema having 0% description coverage. The agent cannot infer how to construct valid input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update Tools User Valves By Id', indicating the action (update) and resource (user valves for tools). However, 'user valves' is a jargon term not explained, and the description fails to differentiate this from similar sibling tools like 'update_tools_valves_by_id' or 'update_tools_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_tools_valves_by_id' or 'get_tools_user_valves_by_id', nor does it mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no behavioral details in the description, the agent has no information about side effects, authorization needs, or error behavior. The description is a bare minimum and does not disclose any traits beyond the obvious read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but sacrifices clarity and context. It is minimally acceptable for a simple tool but could be more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description should at least hint at what the returned data contains or any prerequisites. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only repeats the parameter name ('id') without adding format, constraints, or usage examples. The tool has a single required parameter, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Channel By Id' clearly states the action (get) and resource (channel by ID), but fails to differentiate this tool from many sibling get_channel_* tools (e.g., get_channel_members_by_id, get_channel_messages) that also retrieve channel-related data. It lacks specificity about what exactly is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. Given numerous sibling tools for channel operations (e.g., get_channel_members_by_id, get_channel_messages), the description should indicate context, but it does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and the description says nothing about side effects, read/write nature, authorization requirements, or any behavioral traits. The tool could be a simple read or could have hidden effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two words, but it comes at the cost of valuable information. Structure is flat with no details; while not verbose, it is under-specified for a tool with one parameter and no annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and a single parameter, the description fails to provide essential context about channel webhooks, the parameter's purpose, or the response format. With no annotations, this is notably incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'id'. The parameter's role (likely channel ID) is not explained, forcing the agent to infer from context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'Channel Webhooks', indicating the tool retrieves webhooks for a channel. It is specific enough to distinguish from create/delete/update webhook tools but lacks details about what exactly is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or differentiate from other like-named channel tools (e.g., get_channel_by_id, get_channels).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or return format. The agent must infer basic behavior from the 'get' verb.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary context and could benefit from additional sentences explaining parameter usage or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the single-sentence description is far from complete. The agent has insufficient information to correctly invoke the tool or interpret its results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no descriptions for prompt_id, from_id, and to_id. The description does not explain what these parameters represent (e.g., version identifiers, IDs), leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it gets a diff between two versions, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of diff (e.g., text, metadata) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_prompt_history that also deal with versions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_prompt_history and get_prompt_by_id, the agent has no context to decide which tool is appropriate for comparing versions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Merely stating 'Get Prompts' implies a read operation but does not disclose behavior such as retrieval scope, pagination, sorting, or side effects. Inadequate for a 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (2 words) but under-specified. Lacks essential details, making it not earn its place. Contrasts with calibration example for 'Process' which scored 2.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and no parameters, the description does not specify what prompts are returned (e.g., all prompts, user-specific, active only). Incomplete for effective tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage. Baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the empty schema; it does not clarify that no parameters are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description 'Get Prompts' is a tautology of the tool name. It indicates verb and resource but provides no distinction from numerous sibling tools like get_prompt_by_id, get_prompt_list, etc. Vague purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance provided. Agent has no information on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_prompt_by_command or get_prompt_tags. No context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or response format. The agent has no insight into side effects or restrictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is extremely brief but lacks necessary detail. While there is no fluff, the brevity compromises clarity and usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and minimal description, the tool lacks essential context. The agent cannot determine what data is returned, how to interpret 'user groups', or any additional behavior needed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists 'user_id' as a required string with no description (0% coverage). The description does not clarify the parameter's meaning, expected format, or constraints, leaving the agent with only the name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get User Groups By Id' indicates retrieving user groups for a given user ID, but it is vague and does not specify the relationship (e.g., groups the user belongs to) or differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'get_user_groups_api_v1_users_groups_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many tools but no explicit context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions no side effects, authentication requirements, or return format, providing insufficient transparency for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but it is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It lacks key information that could be conveyed in a few more sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and numerous sibling tools with similar names (e.g., 'get_user_active_status_by_id', 'get_user_info_by_session_user'), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the status entails or how it differs from related tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description adds no extra meaning, but baseline of 3 is appropriate since no param info is needed beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get User Status By Session User' merely restates the tool name without clarifying what 'user status' means or what it includes. It lacks specificity about the resource being retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_user_active_status_by_id' or 'get_user_info_by_session_user', leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Healthcheck' is too vague; it does not state what the tool does (e.g., returns HTTP 200, checks server readiness), what side effects exist, or what the response contains.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one word) but it is under-specified and does not earn its place. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information that distinguishes the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a simple health check description could suffice, but the existence of a sibling with 'DB' in its name suggests this tool has a distinct scope (e.g., non-DB check). The description is incomplete for proper invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. While 0 parameters allows a higher baseline (4), the description is uninformative, warranting a slight reduction to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Healthcheck' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying the resource, action, or scope. It fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'healthcheck_with_db_health_db_get', which implies different behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 'healthcheck_with_db_health_db_get'. The context suggests there are multiple health check endpoints, but the description provides no criteria for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this tool modifies existing messages, requires authorization, or has rate limits. The bare phrase 'Post New Message' only implies creation, without details on side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but it sacrifices informativeness. While brevity is good, it omits crucial context that could be added without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is insufficient for the tool's complexity (7 parameters, output schema). It does not explain the outcome, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The output schema exists, but the description doesn't hint at the return value format or success/failure indicators.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. Required parameters 'id' and 'content' are not explained (e.g., 'id' likely channel ID, but not stated). Optional parameters like 'data', 'meta', 'parent_id' are completely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Post New Message' clearly indicates the action (post) and the object (new message), but lacks specificity about the context (channel, thread, etc.). The tool name includes 'channels', but the description does not mention this, making it ambiguous compared to siblings like 'post_webhook_message'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_message_by_id' or 'send_chat_message_event'. The description fails to clarify the intended use case or prerequisites (e.g., existing channel, permissions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether this creates a client, requires authentication, or returns credentials. For a registration tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is excessively brief (3 words) and provides no structure. While concise, it fails to convey necessary information and does not 'earn its place' as a standalone guide.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool definition is critically incomplete. The agent cannot understand the registration process, outcomes, or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent must rely on parameter names (type, client_id, client_name, url) which are somewhat self-explanatory but lack details like format, constraints, or defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Register Oauth Client' clearly states the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling OAuth tools like authorize or callback. The name is long and hints at the endpoint, but the description lacks specificity about what registering entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Siblings include other OAuth endpoints, but the description provides no context for choosing this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any side effects, permissions required, idempotency, or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not referenced, further reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one short phrase), but it sacrifices substance for brevity. It is under-specified, providing no structure or additional information that would aid understanding. True conciseness would include necessary details without excess.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not leveraged, the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain what the update entails, what the response looks like, or how it relates to similar knowledge operations, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (parameters have no descriptions), and the tool description does not add any meaning beyond parameter names. While 'id' and 'file_id' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify their roles or expected format, which would be especially helpful given the lack of schema details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Update File From Knowledge By Id') and identifies the resource (file from knowledge) and identifier (by id). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_file_to_knowledge_by_id' or 'remove_file_from_knowledge_by_id', missing an opportunity to clarify its specific role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include many knowledge-related operations, but the description offers no context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a write operation ('Update') but discloses no behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, idempotency, error handling, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (four words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to add value beyond the tool name, so the sentence does not 'earn its place.'
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It omits critical information about parameter roles, return values, and error conditions, leaving an agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for the four parameters (id, data, meta, name). While 'name' is hinted, 'data' and 'meta' remain completely opaque, leaving an agent without necessary context to correctly populate the input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Folder Name By Id' clearly states the action and resource, but it merely rephrases the tool name without adding new context. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'update_folder_parent_id_by_id' or 'update_folder_is_expanded_by_id', so it meets only the 'vague purpose' threshold.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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. alternative folder update tools. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name, which is insufficient for making an informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', which implies mutation, but omits potential side effects (e.g., reorganizing child chats), permission requirements, reversibility, or error conditions. The lack of detail makes it difficult for an agent to understand the full impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from additional sentences to provide essential details. It is not overly verbose, but the conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the purpose of parent_id, return values, or the implications of re-parenting a folder. For a mutation tool affecting hierarchy, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. The parameters id and parent_id are listed but not explained (e.g., what values parent_id can take, what a null value means). An agent cannot infer usage constraints from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Folder Parent Id By Id' clearly states the action and resource, but it merely restates the tool name without adding any additional context. This is minimally clear but does not distinguish from sibling tools that update other folder fields (e.g., update_folder_name_by_id).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_folder_name_by_id or update_chat_folder_id_by_id. There are no prerequisites, warnings, or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a mutation (updating a password) but does not disclose potential side effects like invalidating existing sessions, requiring re-authentication, or any security implications. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two words, which is too brief to be useful. It lacks any sentence structure or additional context, reducing its value for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool requires two parameters and involves a sensitive operation (password change), the description is incomplete. It does not mention success/failure conditions, error handling, or any prerequisites. Although an output schema exists, the description still needs to cover usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description 'Update Password' does not clarify the meaning of the two parameters 'password' and 'new_password'. While names suggest current and new password, the description adds no value beyond what the parameter names imply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Password' indicates a clear verb and resource, but it is too generic and does not differentiate from other auth-related tools like signup or password reset. The tool name suggests it's for updating the current user's password, but the description lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as signup or reset password flows. It does not mention prerequisites like being authenticated or that the user must provide their current password.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing settings. It does not clarify whether the update is incremental or destructive, nor does it describe any response behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one sentence and appears concise, but it is under-specified. It omits critical details about the parameter, behavior, and context, making it insufficient for proper tool selection and use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the input parameter, the return value, or how this tool fits with the many sibling tools. The agent would have no basis for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'ui'. The description does not explain what 'ui' represents (e.g., UI preferences, layout, theme), its expected structure, or how it maps to user settings. The default value is noted in the schema, but no semantic context is added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update User Settings By Session User' communicates the general action and subject (updating settings for the current user), but it is nearly identical to the tool name, offering little additional clarity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_user_info_by_session_user' or 'get_user_settings_by_session_user'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which other tools might be more appropriate for related tasks such as updating general user info or retrieving settings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as network calls, side effects, or success/failure responses. The agent has no insight into what 'verify' entails operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but borders on under-specification. It lacks structure, and while it avoids verbosity, it does not front-load critical information beyond the basic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the verification process, required inputs, or expected output, leaving the agent without sufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and the description offering no explanation of parameters, the tool leaves all 7 parameters (5 required) completely unexplained. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (connection to the tool server). The verb is specific and the resource is unambiguous, distinguishing it from siblings that get or set configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tool_servers_config or set_tool_servers_config. The description does not mention prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether cloning creates a duplicate, what fields are copied, or side effects. The description adds no value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but lacks necessary detail; it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every sentence should add value, and this fails to inform.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description is entirely inadequate. It does not mention return values or side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'id' or 'title'. The meaning of 'id' (chat ID) and when to provide 'title' is left ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Clone Chat By Id' clearly states the action (clone) and the resource (chat by ID). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clone_shared_chat_by_id' which targets shared chats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_new_chat' or 'clone_shared_chat_by_id'. No exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether it modifies the input, requires permissions, or has side effects). For a format tool, it likely only reads but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is too brief (two words) and under-specified, not achieving conciseness with value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the minimal schema and no output schema, the description should provide more context about behavior and return values. It does not, leaving the tool under-defined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'code' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description adds no meaning (e.g., expected formats, language constraints).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Format Code' indicates a verb (format) and resource (code), but lacks specificity about what formatting is applied (e.g., language, style). It is somewhat distinguishable from the sibling 'execute_code' tool, but the purpose is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_code'. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as input format, output details, or limitations. The agent has no insight into how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (2 words) but at the expense of substance. It lacks necessary details to be useful, making it underspecified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanation, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'form_data' parameter. The parameter is an object with additionalProperties true, leaving its purpose completely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Generate Emoji' clearly states the tool's action and resource. Among sibling generation tools (e.g., generate_autocompletion, generate_chat_tags), this is the only one specific to emoji, making it distinguishable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like other generation endpoints. No context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. The description carries the full burden but fails to add any transparency beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and depth. It is not overly verbose, but for a minimal description, it is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, the description should at least mention what the output contains. It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'id' with no description, and the tool description adds no meaning or context. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the parameter's purpose entirely ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Chat Tags By Id' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (chat tags by ID), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_tag_by_id_and_tag_name' or 'get_all_user_tags'. It is not a tautology, but lacks specification of what exactly is returned.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on selecting it over similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond the implied read operation. It does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and fails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, with no wasted information. It front-loads the core action, though it is too terse for full clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to specify that this is for image configuration, which is crucial among many similar config endpoints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no meaning beyond the empty schema, but the baseline for zero parameters is 3. However, it could clarify what config is returned.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Config' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name and does not specify what configuration is retrieved. The name suggests image configuration, but the description adds no clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other get_config endpoints (e.g., get_audio_config, get_code_execution_config). The description lacks any context for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation without describing return behavior, permissions, or side effects. The implication of a read operation is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool. However, it lacks front-loading of key information and is too brief for the required depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not hint at the return value, permissions, or how to obtain the ID, leaving the agent underinformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the single parameter 'id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify what the ID represents (e.g., file ID from another endpoint), but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action 'Get File Data Content By Id', which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what 'data content' means compared to siblings like 'get_file_content_by_id' and 'get_html_file_content_by_id', leading to ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation with no mention of side effects, permissions, error handling, or response format. The agent cannot determine if this is a read-only operation or if it requires special authorization.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but this brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks sufficient information to guide correct usage, so it does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high tool complexity (many sibling tools, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Html File Content' means, what the response looks like, or how the ID is obtained. The agent has insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. The description does not explain what the 'id' parameter represents, its format, or how it relates to other file IDs. The agent gets no additional context beyond the schema's type and requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Html File Content By Id' clearly specifies the action (get), the resource (html file content), and the required identifier (id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_file_content_by_id_api_v1_files by narrowing to HTML content, though the phrasing is minimal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling file content retrieval tools (e.g., get_file_content_by_id_api_v1_files, get_file_data_content_by_id_api_v1_files), the description does not explain why to choose this one, leaving the agent without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, or authentication requirements. The POST method suggests mutability, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks any further structure or detail. It does not waste words, but it also does not add value beyond the minimum.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description fails to provide essential context such as return format (e.g., full HTML document vs fragment), markdown flavor, or error handling. The agent is left with incomplete information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema parameter 'md' has no description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not provide any additional meaning. The agent receives no information about the expected markdown format, length limits, or required syntax, making it difficult to use correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Html From Markdown' clearly states the action (converting markdown to HTML) and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like format_code or execute_code. However, it could be more explicit about the expected output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavior but only states the action. It does not indicate read-only nature, pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (two words) but under-specified. Conciseness is not beneficial when it omits essential context. The description lacks structure or any informative content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is insufficient for the tool's role among many siblings. It does not explain what 'memories' are, how they are returned, or any behavioral traits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the absence of parameters means the schema already covers all inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Memories' is a tautology that restates the name without adding clarity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like query_memory or update_memory_by_id, and fails to specify scope (e.g., all memories for user or filter criteria).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_memory (which likely offers filtering) or other memory operations. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral traits beyond the implied read operation are disclosed. No annotations exist to fill gaps, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, or response characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at 3 words, but this brevity sacrifices informative content. It is not verbose, yet it fails to be adequately descriptive.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand its purpose or use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning, but the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Task Config' states a verb and resource, but is vague and does not differentiate from many other get_config tools like get_admin_config_api_v1_auths_admin_config_get or get_audio_config_api_v1_audio_config_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_task_config_api_v1_tasks_config_update_post or other config retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it returns active or all sessions, or error conditions. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but no additional context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase) but lacks structure and essential details. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and low parameter clarity, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe the response structure, pagination, or any contextual information needed for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The single parameter user_id is not explained beyond the schema's title 'User Id', leaving the agent unsure about the format or source of the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get User Oauth Sessions By Id' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (User Oauth Sessions) with an identifier (Id). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_user_by_id or other session-related tools, leaving ambiguity about what exactly 'Oauth Sessions' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many user- and session-related sibling tools, the agent lacks context to select this tool appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It only restates the tool name, failing to disclose that it mutates state, requires authentication, or returns the updated config. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one phrase), but this comes at the cost of omitting essential details. It is not verbose, but it fails to be informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role as a configuration setter (destructive, potentially authorization-sensitive), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain that the tool replaces the entire tool servers config, what the output schema returns, or any error conditions. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the lack of high-level context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter information. The complex 'TOOL_SERVER_CONNECTIONS' array with nested properties like url, path, auth_type, key, config, type, headers is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on how to structure input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set Tool Servers Config' clearly indicates the verb (set) and resource (tool servers config), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_tool_servers_config or verify_tool_servers_config. However, it lacks additional context that would make it excellent, such as specifying what aspects are configured.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions), or that it overwrites existing configuration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Add Members By Id', indicating a mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, authorization requirements, error handling, or side effects such as overwriting existing members.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise but severely underspecified. It sacrifices informativeness for brevity, making it insufficient for the agent to understand the tool's functionality beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, return values, or how this tool fits into the channel management workflow (e.g., whether it replaces or appends members).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which provides names and types but no explanations of what 'id', 'group_ids', or 'user_ids' represent or how they should be used together.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add Members By Id' clearly identifies the verb 'Add' and the resource 'Members' identified by ID, distinguishing it from the sibling 'remove_members_by_id_api_v1_channels' by the action. The target object (channel) is implied from the tool name, so the purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other channel update tools). There are no prerequisites or context about when adding members is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states 'Create Channel Webhook' but does not reveal that this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, or any side effects (e.g., whether duplicate webhooks are allowed).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), which is good for brevity but fails to provide necessary context. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices completeness for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with 3 parameters and an output schema (not described), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the output is, nor does it reference related tools like get_channel_webhooks or delete_channel_webhook.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no value beyond the parameter names. The parameters 'id', 'name', and 'profile_image_url' are not explained, leaving their purpose and constraints unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Channel Webhook' clearly indicates the action (create) and the resource (channel webhook), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update, delete, and get webhooks. However, it does not elaborate on what a channel webhook is or its purpose, which could add clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updating or deleting webhooks, or when creating a webhook is inappropriate. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., channel must exist) or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the action, such as whether it is destructive, permission requirements, or side effects. No annotations are present to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but this brevity comes at the cost of usefulness. It is not structured to front-load important information; it is merely a label.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine return values, required permissions, or parameter constraints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no explanation of the four parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent has no guidance beyond parameter names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create Folder' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling folder tools (e.g., update, delete, get). However, it lacks additional context such as scope or constraints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to set parent_id or meta). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create New Model,' omitting any details about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what the creation entails. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but it sacrifices usefulness. While conciseness is positive, it fails to serve the agent because it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 7 parameters (including nested objects), an output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not mention required fields, behavior, or return values, leaving a large knowledge gap for the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it provides none. The input schema has 7 parameters with only their names and types, no descriptions are added. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a verb and resource ('Create New Model'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like create_new_chat, create_new_channel, etc., which also create resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many create tools, there is no contextual hint about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits, but it only says 'Create New Prompt'. It does not indicate whether this is a mutation, requires authentication, or 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of completeness. It is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity with 10 parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter count and the presence of an output schema (not described), the description fails to explain the return value or any post-creation behavior. It is incomplete for an AI agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters (3 required), the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. The agent receives no help understanding what 'access_grants', 'command', or 'meta' mean.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create New Prompt' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that create other entities like channels or chats. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or uniqueness of prompts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain 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 update_prompt_by_id or get_prompt_list. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create New Skill' with no disclosure of side effects, authentication needs, or behavioral details beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words) but under-specified. Not structured with any additional context; it is too minimal for a tool with a complex input schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and 7 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the creation process, return values, or any nuances needed for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides zero parameter information. For 7 parameters including nested objects, the user has no guidance on what each parameter means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Create New Skill' which clearly indicates the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_new_channel or create_new_chat. However, it lacks additional context that would elevate it to a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use or not use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, which is critical given the many similar create tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Delete All Models', omitting that this is destructive, irreversible, may require admin privileges, and lacks any safety warnings or side effects. This is a high-risk operation with insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (3 words), but at the expense of critical context. While brevity is good, it sacrifices meaningful information that an agent needs to safely invoke this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, output schema, or parameter details, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to specify who can execute it, whether it's reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., chats using models), and any confirmation or rollback mechanism.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivial. Description adds no value beyond the schema; it merely restates the function name. A baseline of 3 is appropriate for zero parameters with no additional clarity on scope or operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Delete' and resource 'All Models', distinguishing it from siblings like delete_model_by_id which deletes a single model. However, it could specify the scope (e.g., all models in the system vs. user's models).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., delete_model_by_id). No mention of prerequisites, permissions, or situations where this tool is inappropriate. The sibling list includes a more granular deletion tool, but the description fails to contrast them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructiveness, permission requirements, or side effects. For a delete operation, this information is critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), which is concise but may be too brief to convey necessary context. It is front-loaded, but lacks detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema and no annotations, the description fails to provide contextual completeness. It does not explain return values, effects, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters 'id' and 'webhook_id'. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the schema's minimal type and requirement.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Channel Webhook' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (channel webhook). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create or update by the verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_channel_by_id or update_channel_webhook. The description lacks context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Delete Function By Id' without revealing any behavioral traits beyond the obvious mutation. There is no mention of idempotency, cascading effects, permissions needed, or what the function's status should be prior to deletion. With no annotations provided, the description fails to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, which is efficient but results in under-specification. It is not padded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description should include more context about the deletion scope, return value, or potential side effects. It is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not add any meaning to the 'id' parameter. It does not explain the format, source, or constraints of the identifier, leaving the agent without essential context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete', the resource 'Function', and the identifier method 'By Id'. It is specific enough to distinguish from other types of operations, but among many similarly named delete tools for different resources, it does not provide unique differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other tools (e.g., toggle, update, or other delete operations). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or alternative scenarios mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete', implying a destructive action, but fails to specify whether deletion is permanent, if related data (e.g., associated files) are affected, or if any confirmation is required. This minimal transparency is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is efficient for readability, but the brevity sacrifices information. It front-loads the core action but lacks any structured breakdown or additional context. A balance between conciseness and completeness is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema (unseen), the description should at least mention expected outcomes, error conditions, or side effects. It provides only the bare operation name, leaving agents uninformed about success/failure behavior and data implications.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description only mentions 'By Id', weakly implying the 'id' parameter uniquely identifies the knowledge to delete. No explanation of format, constraints, or where to obtain a valid ID is given. The description adds little beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Knowledge By Id' clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (Knowledge) but adds no extra context to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'update_knowledge_by_id_api_v1_knowledge'. It is adequate but not informative beyond the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to delete vs. update). There are no usage context, prerequisites, or conditional instructions, leaving the agent without decision cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only says 'delete'. It fails to disclose important behavioral traits like irreversibility, authorization needs, or error handling. The description does not add value beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase but is under-specified. While short, it lacks necessary detail for an effective tool description. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even with an output schema, the description is too sparse. For a delete operation with many similar siblings, it should cover idempotency, scope, and side effects. The current description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'memory_id' with 0% description coverage, and the description repeats 'Memory Id' without adding any semantics. It does not explain format, constraints, or relationship to the memory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Memory By Id' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (memory) with a specific identifier (by Id). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_memory_by_user_id' which deletes by user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_memory_by_user_id or reset_memory_from_vector_db. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only repeats the name. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permanence, side effects, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but lacks necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to provide minimal viable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a delete operation with no annotations and an output schema not described, the description should mention irreversibility, cascading effects, or return value. It does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter (e.g., format, source, example). The description fails to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Skill By Id' clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (Skill) and identifies the parameter (Id). It distinguishes from siblings like get_skill_by_id (read) and update_skill_by_id (modify).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No prerequisites, effects, or context provided. The description is minimal and does not help the agent decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or if there are any side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices clarity and completeness. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with a single parameter and an output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for a tool that performs an export operation. It lacks detail on what the export entails, the output format (despite an output schema), and how it differs from similar tools. In the context of many group-related siblings, more clarity is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' has no additional description beyond the schema title 'Id'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide semantic context but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export Group By Id' clearly indicates a verb ('Export') and resource ('Group'), but it is too vague about what 'export' means in this context (e.g., download as file, retrieve data). It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_group_by_id_api_v1_groups_id' which also retrieves group data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_group_by_id' or other export tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'zip file containing .txt files' and 'Admin only,' but does not disclose side effects (e.g., if the export is destructive), whether it returns a direct download or a link, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. With zero annotations, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action, but it is undersized for the information needed. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness, missing essential details like parameter semantics and output behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover the parameter's meaning, return format, and any side effects. It provides the output format and permission, but lacks the id context and details like download mechanism, making it incomplete for a fully informed agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter list, leaving the agent to guess what id to provide (e.g., knowledge base ID). This is a critical omission.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('a knowledge base'), and specifies the output format as a zip file containing .txt files. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like get_knowledge_by_id or update_knowledge_by_id, but could be more precise by mentioning the id parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes 'Admin only,' indicating a permission constraint, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_knowledge_by_id for viewing, update for modifying). There is no explicit when/when-not or context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this creates a new key, affects existing keys, or any rate limits. The description carries the full burden but provides no insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It is not appropriately sized for a tool with no annotations or parameter guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool actually does (e.g., generates a key for the current user? returns a new key string?). It is incomplete for the given complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not add meaning beyond schema, but no param info is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states verb 'Generate' and resource 'Api Key', but lacks detail on what the key is used for, its scope, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_api_key or delete_api_key.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling tools, no prerequisites or usage context are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention pagination (page parameter), sorting (order_by, direction), filtering (query), or whether results are limited. The behavior is opaque beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short but not truly concise because it lacks necessary details. It is acceptable in length but fails to be informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the 'id' refers to, what members are returned, or how pagination and ordering work. The output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description does not add any meaning to parameters like 'query', 'order_by', 'direction', or 'page'. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Channel Members By Id' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (channel members by ID). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel_by_id or get_channel_members, which also relate to channels. The purpose is clear but lacks distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool compared to alternatives like add_members_by_id or get_channel_message. It offers no context on prerequisites or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, the format of the content returned, or any side effects. The agent must infer behavior from the name alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), which is concise but not sufficiently informative. It front-loads the action but lacks details that would make it effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, and the presence of many similar siblings, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not add any meaning. It does not specify what entity the 'id' refers to (e.g., file ID, knowledge ID), leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (File Content) and indicates the parameter (Id), making the purpose clear. However, it is very minimal and does not differentiate from similar siblings like get_file_by_id or get_file_data_content_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 are many sibling tools with similar names (e.g., get_file_by_id, get_file_data_content_by_id, get_html_file_content_by_id), but the description provides no context to choose among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description omits behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication needs, or response structure. Carries full burden but adds minimal insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (2 words), but under-specified. Front-loaded, yet sacrifices contextual completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given many sibling folder tools and no annotations, the description is insufficient. Lacks details on return scope, pagination, or filtering, even though output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema (0 params), baseline 4 per guidelines. Description adds nothing beyond schema, but schema coverage is 100%—no missing param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Get Folders' with a clear verb and resource, but does not specify scope (e.g., all folders, user-specific) or differentiate from sibling tools like get_folder_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_folder_by_id or create_folder. Lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only implies read operation, but lacks details on data returned, permissions, or limitations. Output schema exists but not leveraged.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at two words, but too minimal to be informative. Lacks necessary detail while being short.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or usage context. Many sibling tools make this insufficient for selecting correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Parameter 'id' remains undocumented in terms of format, length, or allowed values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'Group by Id', but does not differentiate from sibling 'get_group_info_by_id_api_v1_groups_id' which likely returns similar data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_group_info_by_id' or 'get_groups'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, error handling, or performance characteristics. The agent is left unaware of important behavior beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise (4 words) but at the expense of substance. It is not verbose, but it lacks necessary detail, so it does not fully earn its place as a self-contained description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description omits any context about when to retrieve a model by ID, such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or the returned model structure. The tool is simple, but for an AI agent, more context would improve correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'id', and the description adds no meaning about its format, type, or expected values. The agent cannot infer what constitutes a valid ID or how to construct it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Model By Id' clearly states the verb (get), resource (model), and identifier (by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_models (list) and get_model_profile_image. However, it is minimal and does not elaborate on the scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_models or get_base_models. With many sibling get_* tools, an agent would need external context to decide which to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention whether the output is a URL, binary data, or file path, or any size/access constraints. The agent lacks critical information for correct invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not provide a full sentence or any additional details, sacrificing clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input schema and no output schema, the description could be more complete. The agent has no information about the expected input (what 'id' refers to) or the output format (URL, image data). This is insufficient for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'id' parameter. The tool description does not explain what 'id' refers to (model ID? user ID?). The description adds no value beyond the schema's minimal type information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Model Profile Image' states the verb and resource clearly. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_user_profile_image_by_id' by specifying 'model', though it could be more precise about what 'model' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other image retrieval tools or model information tools. There is no context on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It merely states the action, leaving the agent uninformed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short, which is concise, but it lacks necessary information to be helpful. It does not front-load key details; every word is minimal, but the result is under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and empty parameters, the description is the sole source of context. It fails to specify return values, prerequisites, or differentiation from siblings, making it highly incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the description only hints at the output format (XML) implicitly, which is not explicit enough for a higher score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Opensearch Xml' states a verb and a resource, but it does not clarify what 'Opensearch Xml' is or how it differs from similar tools like get_manifest_json_manifest_json_get. It is not a tautology, but it is vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many 'get' endpoints, but the description provides no context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or what happens when there are no pinned messages. The presence of an output schema is not mentioned, nor is the order or format of results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. It lacks structure (e.g., front-loading key details) and does not include necessary context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of the sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain that this tool retrieves only pinned messages for a given channel, with pagination support, which would enable proper agent selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter names ('id' and 'page') are minimally documented. The description does not explain that 'id' likely refers to the channel ID or that 'page' controls pagination, leaving the agent with no insight beyond the bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Pinned Channel Messages' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Pinned Channel Messages), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_channel_messages, which might also retrieve messages, but the qualifier 'Pinned' implies filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_channel_messages. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error conditions, or output format. The agent gains no insight beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the cost of clarity. It achieves conciseness but omits critical details, making it minimally viable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not mention what the return value represents. For a one-parameter tool, more context about the returned status and potential errors is needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the ID parameter's meaning and constraints. It only states 'Get Pinned Status By Id,' which adds little beyond the schema field name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool retrieves pinned status by ID, but it does not clarify what 'pinned status' entails (e.g., boolean, timestamp). It is minimally distinct from siblings like pin_chat_by_id and get_user_pinned_chats, but the brevity limits differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., pin_chat_by_id, get_user_pinned_chats), the description offers no context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, order of history, error handling, or rate limits. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about side effects or constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices essential detail for brevity. It is not inappropriately long, but could be expanded to improve clarity without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a simple tool with two parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description should at least explain what the version history contains (e.g., list of timestamps, versions) and the role of pagination. The current description is inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not elaborate on 'prompt_id' (e.g., format, where to find it) or 'page' (e.g., page size, indexing). The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the basic schema, which is insufficient for proper invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves version history for a prompt, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_prompt_history_entry or get_prompt_diff, which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other prompt-related tools, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The agent receives no help in selecting among siblings like get_prompt_by_id or set_prompt_version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description merely restates the name. No disclosure of read-only nature, scope, or other behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (one phrase) but front-loaded. Could be considered under-specified for a stats retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks context on what stats are included, pagination behavior, or output format. Incomplete for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
0% schema description coverage; parameters items_per_page and page are not explained. Description adds no meaning to the input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it retrieves chat usage stats for the session user. However, it does not differentiate from sibling stats-related tools like export_chat_stats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 stats tools. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the tool returns full group objects, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or scope of groups (e.g., groups the current user is a member of).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, very short sentence. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking necessary details to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, annotations, or parameter details, the description should provide more context about return values and scope. It does not, making it incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's exact behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it could clarify what groups are returned (e.g., groups for the session user). Baseline for zero params is 4, but the lack of additional context reduces it to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Get User Groups', specifying the verb 'get' and resource 'user groups'. However, it does not clarify whether these are groups for the current user or all groups, and it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'get_groups' and 'get_user_groups_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for groups, users, and channels, the description offers no context to help choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to explain what 'with db' entails (e.g., checks DB connectivity, query, or latency). No behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but under-specified, lacking actionable information. It is not concise in a helpful sense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least specify what the health check verifies (e.g., database reachability) and what response format to expect. It fails to provide this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as no parameter documentation is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Healthcheck With Db' states the tool performs a health check that includes the database, which gives a general idea but lacks a clear verb+resource statement and does not distinguish from the sibling 'healthcheck_health_get'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'healthcheck_health_get' or other health-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description omits behavioral details such as what files are listed, whether content is included, pagination, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Overly concise; the description is a single phrase that fails to provide sufficient information, making it more underspecified than efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema, the description lacks context about the returned data, filtering, or scope, making it inadequate for a list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'content' parameter, leaving its purpose entirely unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Files' clearly indicates the verb and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_files_api_v1_files_search_get, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about usage scenarios or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It merely states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or has side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It fails to earn its place because it omits necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two parameters (one required) and an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not clarify the group identifier or the list of users, nor does it reference sibling tools for context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information beyond what is in the schema. It does not explain what 'id' represents or how 'user_ids' should be formatted, leaving the agent without context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove Users From Group' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (users from group), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_user_to_group_api_v1_groups_id' which performs the opposite operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use add vs remove), and there is no mention of prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search Knowledge Bases' without mentioning return type, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a search tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At 3 words, the description is too terse for a tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions. It lacks structure and essential information, making it under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (search tool, 3 optional params, output schema present), the description is completely inadequate. It explains nothing about the tool's behavior, return format, or usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (query, view_option, page). The agent gets no hints about what these parameters do or how to format them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search Knowledge Bases' clearly indicates the verb (search) and resource (knowledge bases), but it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_knowledge_bases' which likely lists all bases, or 'search_knowledge_files' which searches within bases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to search vs list, or what the query parameter expects. No context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Set Prompt Version' without mentioning idempotency, side effects, or authorization needs. Critical information is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), but this brevity sacrifices informativeness. It could be more helpful without being verbose, e.g., by adding a sentence on purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and many sibling tools, the description should explain the effect (e.g., sets the active version) and relationship to other prompt operations. It falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does not explain what 'prompt_id' and 'version_id' represent or their role in the operation. The tool name hints at the parameters but provides no semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set Prompt Version' indicates an action on a prompt version but is vague. It doesn't specify what 'set' entails (e.g., updating the active version) or distinguish from sibling tools like update_prompt_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 update_prompt_by_id or get_prompt_diff. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., making the chat public), required permissions, or reversibility. 'Share' implies mutation, but details are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is appropriately short for a simple tool. However, it is under-specified, and the brevity sacrifices helpfulness. It earns a baseline 3 for minimal structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the return value or what success looks like. It also omits important context like authentication needs, error conditions, or the effect of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'id' with only a title, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain the role or format of the ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Share Chat By Id' clearly indicates the tool shares a chat by its ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_shared_chat_by_id' (retrieve) and 'clone_shared_chat_by_id' (duplicate). However, it lacks specifics on what sharing entails (e.g., generating a link, setting permissions).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to share vs. clone vs. delete a shared chat. No prerequisites or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description lacks behavioral context such as side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to removed fields. It only repeats the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal (3 words) but fails to provide necessary details. Conciseness without substance is under-specification, not effective efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error conditions, or any side effects beyond the inferred mutation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any parameters. An AI agent would have no understanding of what 'id', 'webhook_id', 'name', or 'profile_image_url' mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Channel Webhook' clearly states the action (update) and the resource (channel webhook), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_channel_webhook and delete_channel_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without describing effects, side effects, required permissions, or whether the update is persistent. The agent gets no behavioral context beyond 'update'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise, but for a tool with six complex parameters, it is under-specified. The sentence earns its place but fails to provide adequate detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the high parameter complexity, missing schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent lacks any context about what permissions are updated, the relationship to get_default_user_permissions, or the expected response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with no descriptions, and the tool description adds zero information about the six nested object parameters. The agent must rely solely on parameter titles and defaults, which are insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Default User Permissions' clearly identifies a verb and resource. It distinguishes it from tools like 'get_default_user_permissions' but does not differentiate from many other 'update_*' siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., per-user permission updates). There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or reference to related tools like get_default_user_permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral constraints. This is insufficient for an update operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words), but it sacrifices completeness. It does not front-load important context or explain any details, making it under-specified. Brevity is not beneficial if it leaves essential information missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters including an array of objects, and an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It does not describe the structure of 'access_grants', how 'id' is used, or any expected behavior. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter schema coverage is 0%—the description does not explain any parameter. The schema has only titles ('Access Grants', 'Id', 'Name') which are minimal. Since description adds no meaning beyond the schema, it provides no help to the agent in understanding what each parameter represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Model Access By Id' clearly states the action (update) and resource (model access). It distinguishes from siblings like update_model_by_id (which likely updates other model attributes) and toggle_model_by_id. However, it could be more specific about what 'access' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_model_by_id or update_tool_access_by_id. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or when not to use it, which is critical for an update operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update access' without explaining mutability, side effects (e.g., whether existing grants are replaced or merged), authorization requirements, or response implications. The role of 'access_grants' is left entirely undefined.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, but it lacks substance. While brevity is valued, this description fails to earn its place by omitting critical details needed for correct invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of two required parameters with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, expected input formats, or outcome of the operation, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description adds no meaning. The schema declares 'id' and 'access_grants' (array of objects with additionalProperties true) but provides no format, constraints, or examples. The agent cannot infer valid values or structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Note Access By Id' clearly indicates the action (update) and the resource (note access). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_note_by_id' which update note content, and 'get_note_by_id' which retrieves. However, it does not elaborate on what 'access' means (e.g., permissions vs. sharing settings).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'update_knowledge_access_by_id' or 'create_new_note'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states 'Update' implying mutation, without detailing side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens on success/failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, using a single sentence. However, it is too brief for the complexity of the tool; a slightly longer description would be more appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description could be shorter for return values, but it still lacks behavioral context. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (13%), but the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain what 'access_grants', 'meta', or other fields do, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Update Skill By Id', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it adds little beyond the tool name itself and does not elaborate on what fields can be updated or any specific behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_new_skill or toggle_skill_by_id. There are no prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'Update', implying mutation, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the update takes effect immediately, requires specific permissions, overwrites or merges fields, or has side effects. No annotations are present to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only three words, the description is excessively brief. It is under-specified rather than concise; a few more sentences would be appropriate to cover the tool's purpose and parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 16 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is completely inadequate: it doesn't explain what task configuration is, the role of the parameters, or what the update entails.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 16 parameters. The parameter names and schema titles offer some self-documentation, but the description adds no additional context or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Task Config' clearly indicates a verb+resource pattern. It differentiates from the sibling 'get_task_config' by using 'Update'. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Task Config' encompasses (e.g., generation settings for autocomplete, tags, title).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task_config' or other update tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions under which this update should be performed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, validation rules, or side effects. Without annotations, the tool's behavior is opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices informativeness. A few more words would improve clarity without losing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description should specify the expected input format and what the tool does exactly. It is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'timezone' is not described. With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain its format (e.g., 'America/New_York') and purpose, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Timezone' clearly states the action (update) and resource (timezone). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'update_password' and 'update_profile'. However, it lacks specificity about what timezone is being updated (e.g., user or system setting).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or when not to use it. Siblings include many update functions, but the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' implying destructive action, but does not mention that the folder and potentially its contents are permanently removed, or any authorization or recovery options.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words) but lacks necessary details. It is under-specified, 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.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a destructive operation, two parameters, and many sibling tools, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or what happens to contents.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The 'delete_contents' parameter's role is not explained; the description only mentions the folder id implicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Folder By Id' clearly states the verb (Delete) and resource (Folder by Id). It distinguishes this tool from sibling folder tools like get_folder_by_id, create_folder, and update_folder variants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, conditions for deletion, or that deleting a folder may also delete its contents by default. No when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavior such as whether this is a read-only operation, required authentication, or any side effects. The agent has no information beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At two words, the description is extremely concise, but it sacrifices informativeness. It is neither well-structured nor front-loaded with key details, earning an average score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description does not clarify what 'Banners' are, what the response contains, or the tool's purpose within the configs domain. This incompleteness harms agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and the schema is fully covered (empty). While the baseline for 0 params is 4, the description adds no value by explaining what the tool returns or under what conditions, so an adequate but not excellent score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Banners' is a minimal verb+resource pair but essentially restates the tool name. It does not specify what banners refer to (e.g., UI banners or marketing banners) or how this tool differs from many other 'get_*' siblings, providing only basic clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines are given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 200 sibling tools, the lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the name, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get', implying a read operation, but offers no details on behavior such as side effects, authorization needs, or output format. This is insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, but it is too brief to be fully helpful. While concise, it sacrifices informational value; a single sentence of moderate length would be more appropriate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description lacks context about what base models are and how this tool fits among siblings. It is incomplete for an agent to understand its specific use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed. Baseline is 3 per high coverage, and the description does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Base Models' states the verb and resource clearly, indicating the tool retrieves a list of base models. However, among siblings like get_models and get_model_by_id, it fails to explain what distinguishes base models from other models, limiting differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_models or get_model_by_id, nor does it specify context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, whether the operation is read-only, or if it returns full chat details. The name implies a read operation but provides no further context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at four words, but it lacks structure and useful details. It is under-specified, failing to justify its brevity with adequate information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description does not hint at what is returned. Given the many sibling tools for different chat retrieval scenarios, the description is incomplete and does not help an agent understand the tool's scope.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining the 'id' parameter. It merely includes 'By Id' in the name, which is insufficient. The schema provides the parameter title but no additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Chat By Id' clearly states the action (get) and resource (chat) and identifies the key parameter (id). However, it does not differentiate from other get-chat tools like 'get_session_user_chat_list_api_v1_chats' or 'get_shared_session_user_chat_list_api_v1_chats', which could cause confusion about which chat is being retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_session_user_chat_list_api_v1_chats' or 'get_user_chat_list_by_tag_name_api_v1_chats'. This lack of guidance could lead an agent to select the wrong tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a read operation but offers no details about permissions, rate limits, or what 'info' entails. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, which it fails to meet.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (5 words), but this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. It is not concise in a useful way; it is under-specified for an API endpoint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is an output schema, the description should hint at what the response contains (e.g., group details). It also does not help distinguish from sibling tools. The description is incomplete for the tool's actual functionality.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% documentation coverage. The description mentions 'by Id' but does not explain what the id represents (e.g., group ID) or any constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'Group Info', and scope 'by Id', making the basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_group_by_id_api_v1_groups_id', which seems to have a similar purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for groups (e.g., get_group_by_id, get_groups, get_users_in_group), the absence of usage context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action without any details about authentication, side effects, or safety. A read operation is implied but not confirmed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, which is appropriate for a simple getter with no parameters. However, it sacrifices clarity and completeness; it could be expanded to include what the config represents without being lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameters and output schema, the description should explain what the RAG configuration includes or the purpose of the tool. It does not, leaving the agent without context. The sibling 'update_rag_config' suggests mutability, but no further info is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (by default). With no parameters to document, the baseline score is 4, but the description does not add any information about what the config contains or its structure. Thus, the value added is minimal, resulting in a 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Rag Config' identifies a verb and resource, but 'Rag Config' is ambiguous; it likely means RAG configuration, but the description lacks specificity about what exactly is retrieved. It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_rag_config' as a read operation, but is too vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_embedding_config' or other configuration getters. The agent receives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It only states the action without revealing traits like authentication requirements, response format, or the fact that it likely lists non-archived chats (given the existence of an archived list tool).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is short (5 words), it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and does not efficiently convey necessary information for an AI agent to decide to use it.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and multiple siblings, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain what the list contains, how pagination works, or how the optional parameters affect results, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the meaning of 'page', 'include_pinned', or 'include_folders', failing to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'Session User Chat List', so the basic purpose is clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many siblings, such as 'get_session_user_chat_list_api_v1_chats' or 'get_archived_session_user_chat_list', which could cause confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the archived list or filtered lists. The description provides no context for selection, leaving the agent without decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only states the read operation implicitly via 'Get', but fails to disclose authentication requirements, return format, or any side effects. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase, but it lacks structure and is essentially a fragment. It is not overly verbose, but could benefit from more detail without being wordy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool having no parameters, the description is too minimal. It does not indicate what the config contains, the response format, or how to interpret the result. More context is needed for an agent to understand the tool's purpose fully.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-specific information because none exist. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Terminal Servers Config' is a tautology of the tool name, providing no new information. It is clear about the resource but does not add value or distinguish from siblings beyond what the name already does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool, prerequisites, or how it differs from the sibling 'set_terminal_servers_config' tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the name. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to mention idempotency, whether it toggles pin status (though 'is_pinned' suggests setting), rate limits, permissions, or side effects like notifications. The brevity leaves the agent uninformed about crucial behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two words), but it sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded but under-specified for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the single phrase 'Pin Channel Message' is insufficient to guide effective tool use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 required params, no annotations, no output schema description despite having one), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or prerequisites. A complete description would address these gaps, but this one lacks critical context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. The parameters 'id', 'message_id', and 'is_pinned' are listed in the schema but their meaning is not elaborated. While names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no value, leaving the agent to infer semantics without guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pin Channel Message' clearly states the action (pin) and the resource (channel message). It is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_channel_by_id' or 'add_reaction_to_message', but the action of pinning is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'unpin_channel_message' or 'get_pinned_channel_messages'. It also lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., channel and message existence) or when pinning is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update', implying mutation, but fails to mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it performs a partial or full replacement. This is insufficient for an update operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words) but at the cost of completeness. It does not front-load key information beyond what the name conveys. Every sentence should add value; here, one sentence adds minimal value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for an update tool. It does not explain which fields can be updated, whether it supports partial updates, or what constraints exist (e.g., content length limits). The tool's behavior remains ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain any of the 8 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent has no additional context beyond parameter names and types. Critical parameters like 'id', 'message_id', and 'content' lack semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Message By Id' clearly indicates the action (update) and the resource (message). It is specific enough to distinguish from related tools like post, delete, or get message operations. However, it essentially repeats the tool name without adding new information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., post_new_message, delete_message). It does not mention prerequisites such as required permissions, channel membership, or message existence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, omitting effects like whether adding a duplicate file is rejected or overwritten, and any required permissions or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one phrase) and concise, but it lacks structure such as separate lines or examples. It is acceptable in brevity but could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or schema descriptions, the description should explain parameter meanings and any prerequisites. It fails to do so, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not clarify what 'id' and 'file_id' refer to (likely knowledge base ID and file ID, respectively). This leaves ambiguity that could cause incorrect usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Add File To Knowledge By Id', which identifies the action (add file) and target (knowledge, likely a knowledge base). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_files_to_knowledge_batch_api_v1_knowledge', which presumably adds multiple files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., knowledge base must exist, file must already be uploaded) or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete', which implies irreversible removal, but gives no details on side effects, permissions required, or whether the operation is permanent. The minimal description fails to inform the agent about critical behavioral aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is excessively terse. While conciseness is valued, it sacrifices necessary information. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the description omits crucial details, making it under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should provide complete context. It fails to describe the nature of deletion (soft vs hard), return value, or any error conditions. Sibling tools are numerous and similar, yet no distinguishing details are offered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter. The description does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., file UUID, path), nor does it provide format or constraints. This is a significant gap as the description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete File By Id' clearly states the action (delete), resource (file), and method (by ID). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'delete_all_files' or 'delete_folder_by_id' by specifying the exact operation on an individual file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where deletion is appropriate, or exclusions. The description is purely a statement of purpose without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description implies a destructive operation but does not disclose side effects such as deletion of associated memberships, permissions, or other related data. There is no mention of authorization requirements or irreversible consequences. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words), which is concise but lacks necessary detail. It front-loads the verb and resource but does not provide any additional structure or guidance. Given the simplicity of the tool, it is acceptable but could be improved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact. There is no mention of success/failure responses, error conditions, or what happens if the group does not exist. An output schema exists, but the description does not reference it. The minimalism leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'id' is described only as 'Id' in the schema. The description adds no further detail about what kind of identifier it is (e.g., group UUID, name) or how to obtain it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete Group' and the method 'By Id'. It distinguishes the tool as one that removes a group entirely, as opposed to sibling tools like 'remove_users_from_group' which only remove users. However, it could be more specific about what deletion entails (e.g., permanent removal of the group and its data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to delete a group vs. update it or remove users). There are no prerequisites, caveats, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, read-only nature, or response format. The description carries the full burden but adds no context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (3 words) and borders on tautology. It is under-informative and does not earn its place as it provides no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide sufficient context. It fails to differentiate from similar sibling tools and does not explain what 'Admin Config' is, 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema covers 100% of parameter definitions. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and baseline for no parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Admin Config' clearly indicates the verb and resource, but is vague as it does not specify what 'Admin Config' encompasses, and fails to differentiate from similar sibling tool 'get_admin_details'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_admin_config' or 'get_admin_details'. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description offers no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or returned data. While there is an output schema, the description does not hint at the behavior (e.g., read-only, auth required).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse (only 3 words), which sacrifices clarity. While it is short, it is not concise because it omits necessary context. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single phrase fails to inform adequately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero annotations and a simple schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's role among many auth-related siblings, nor does it clarify the return value or authentication requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline is 4 for zero parameters since no additional meaning is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Api Key' states a verb and resource, but it is ambiguous: it does not specify whose API key (e.g., current user, any user) or what type of key. This vagueness could lead an agent to misuse the tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_api_key or delete_api_key. The description does not mention context or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the basic operation, omitting details like return format, error handling, or authorization requirements. For a single-folder fetch, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words) but lacks necessary detail. It is not verbose, but the brevity reduces usefulness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description still fails to explain the tool's purpose fully. It does not clarify what is returned or how it differs from list or update operations. Incomplete for a simple read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the only parameter 'id'. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name, such as format (UUID, integer) or source (e.g., from get_folders).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Folder By Id' clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (folder by id). It is specific but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_folders_api_v1_folders, which lists all folders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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., get_folders_api_v1_folders, update_folder_name_by_id_api_v1_folders). The description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description bears full burden. It only states 'Get...' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires special permissions. The minimal text fails to add behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (5 words), which could be considered concise, but it lacks substance. It is not front-loaded with critical information; instead it is a near-tautology of the tool name. Valuable agent guidance is missing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (many sibling tools with similar names, e.g., get_function_user_valves_by_id, get_function_valves_spec_by_id), the description does not explain what 'User Valves Spec' means or how it fits. Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing conceptual context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter. It does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., function ID) or provide any usage details. The description entirely relies on the schema parameter title, which is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Function User Valves Spec', clearly indicating the tool retrieves the specification for user-specific valves of a function. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_function_user_valves_by_id (actual values) and get_function_valves_spec_by_id (valves spec for the function itself).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions for invocation. The description provides no decision support for selecting among similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details. It does not mention idempotency, error conditions, or any side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase, which is concise but omits important context. It is not verbose, but trade-offs completeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema existing, the description lacks completeness. It does not clarify what 'valves' are or how this tool relates to other function-related endpoints, making it insufficient for an agent to select it correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate. It mentions 'By Id' but does not clarify that 'id' refers to a function ID or provide any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Function Valves) with a parameter (By Id). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_function_user_valves_by_id or get_function_valves_spec_by_id, which have similar names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar 'get_function_*' tools. The description lacks context about distinguishing features such as what 'valves' are or when to prefer this over get_function_by_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get Function Valves Spec By Id' without explaining read-only nature, required permissions, or what the spec represents. This leaves the agent without necessary behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which could be seen as concise, but it lacks necessary detail. It is not wasteful but also not sufficiently informative. A score of 3 reflects minimal adequacy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description could be more complete by outlining what the spec contains. It does not explain the concept of 'valves spec' or how the result is structured. For a get-by-id tool, it omits crucial context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%: the description does not explain the 'id' parameter's purpose or expected format. The single parameter is mentioned only in the schema, which provides no additional context. The description fails to add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (Function Valves Spec) and method (by Id). However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like get_function_valves_by_id, which might confuse the agent. The name itself is descriptive, but the description misses an opportunity to clarify uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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 get_function_valves_by_id or get_function_by_id. The description provides no context for selection among similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic purpose. No mention of authentication, error behavior, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short, but not overly verbose. However, it could be more informative without being lengthy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need return details, but it lacks information about what constitutes a 'tool' in this context and error handling. It's insufficient for an agent to fully understand usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% parameter description coverage. The description only implies 'id' is the tool identifier but adds no details on format or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Tools By Id' clearly states the action (get) and resource (tools) with an identifier method (by id). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tools' (no id) or 'get_tool_list'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_tools' or 'get_tool_list'. No exclusion or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description provides no behavioral information beyond the basic action. It does not disclose what happens on success/failure, permissions required, or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is very concise (3 words), but is under-specified for a tool in a large sibling set. Some additional context would improve without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. Even with an output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., user profile details).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'user_id' parameter. It does not explain format (e.g., UUID, email) or source.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get User By Id', specifying the action (Get), resource (User), and identifier method (ById). It distinguishes from tools like get_all_users and get_session_user, though there are similar tools like get_user_info_by_id that could be confused.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention side effects, safety, or operational impact (e.g., whether reindexing is destructive, requires certain permissions, or affects other knowledge operations).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief (three words), but this conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness. It is under-specified and does not earn its place with meaningful content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description fails to provide necessary behavioral context. It does not clarify what reindexing does, whether it is idempotent, or how it interacts with other knowledge management operations, leaving a significant gap for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters, the schema provides full coverage. The description adds no value beyond the schema, but the lack of parameters means there is little to add. A score of 4 reflects that the description is adequate given the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reindex Knowledge Files' provides a verb and resource but is vague. It does not specify what reindexing entails (e.g., rebuilding indexes, updating embeddings) and does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'reindex_knowledge_base_metadata_embeddings'. The purpose is clear only at a high level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without direction for appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states 'Update', implying a write operation, but provides no details on side effects, permission requirements, or whether changes are reversible. With no annotations, the agent cannot assess the tool's behavioral impact.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is extremely concise. However, it sacrifices necessary information for brevity. It is front-loaded but under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 22 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no description of what 'admin config' encompasses, the description is incomplete. The agent cannot determine the full scope or impact of the update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 22 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate but does not. While many parameter names are self-explanatory (e.g., 'ENABLE_SIGNUP'), some like 'API_KEYS_ALLOWED_ENDPOINTS' may need clarification. The description adds no parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Admin Config' clearly indicates the action (update) and target (admin config). It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_admin_config' tool. However, it could specify that it updates system-wide admin settings, not just any config.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool, prerequisites, or compare to other config update tools (e.g., LDAP config). The agent lacks context for appropriate invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'update', which implies mutation but does not disclose whether the update is a full replace or partial patch, what permissions are needed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (five words), which favors conciseness. However, it sacrifices necessary detail and structure. A front-loaded key point is present (the action and resource), but the brevity leaves significant gaps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's role (updating file data content) and the lack of output schema, the description should explain what happens after the update (e.g., response, confirmation) and how content is processed. It provides none of this, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the tool description adds zero information about the parameters. It does not explain what 'content' represents (e.g., text, binary, or formatted data), leaving the agent to guess. A description should compensate for sparse schema, but it fails here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update File Data Content By Id' clearly indicates the action (update), the specific resource (file data content), and the identifier (by id). However, it does not differentiate from other file update tools (e.g., update_file_from_knowledge_by_id) that might partially overlap, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description lacks context about whether this should be used for specific file types or in combination with other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' which implies mutation but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, or any other behavioral traits beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (3 words) but at the expense of completeness. While brevity is valued, it lacks structure and front-loads no critical information beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of an update operation with two parameters and an output schema (unknown content), the description is too sparse. It does not differentiate from many sibling memory tools or explain what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description does not add meaning to the parameters (memory_id, content). Although parameter names are clear, the description misses the opportunity to explain what content represents or any constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update Memory By Id' clearly states the action (update) and resource (memory) with identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_memory or delete_memory_by_id, but lacks detail on what exactly is updated beyond the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. No mention of when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., memory must exist), or any context about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without any details on side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or idempotency, which is insufficient for a batch mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single-sentence description is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While no words are wasted, the brevity leads to under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the presence of an output schema, the description omits critical context about batch behavior, such as atomicity partial failure handling, or the expected relationship between input files and the knowledge base.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that 'id' refers to the knowledge base ID or that 'form_data' contains file IDs, leaving the agent to infer from schema structure alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add multiple files to a knowledge base' clearly states the verb ('Add'), resource ('files to a knowledge base'), and scope ('multiple'), effectively distinguishing it from the singular sibling tool 'add_file_to_knowledge_by_id_api_v1_knowledge'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the singular file addition or other knowledge base operations. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a destructive, irreversible operation, nor does it explain the scope (all files for the user? system-wide?). The agent lacks critical context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is extremely concise but at the expense of informativeness. It lacks meaningful content beyond the tool name, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must provide comprehensive context. It fails to do so—no mention of destructive nature, scope, or use cases, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it could clarify what 'all files' means (e.g., user's files vs. system files). Still, the absence of parameters makes this dimension less impactful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete All Files' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (all files), making the primary action obvious. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'delete_all_models' or 'delete_file_by_id', and it essentially restates the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain 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., deleting specific files or other delete operations). There are no prerequisites, consequences, or context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a destructive operation ('Delete'), but does not explain whether the deletion is irreversible, if it affects associated data, or if special permissions are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient but may be too sparse. It is front-loaded with the core action, but lacks any structure or additional context that could be valuable without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, success/failure behavior, or error conditions. The complete absence of parameter description further reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the 'id' parameter. It merely repeats the parameter name without explaining what the ID represents (e.g., 'the ID of the tool to delete').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete Tools By Id' clearly states the verb (Delete), resource (Tools), and method (By Id). This directly conveys what the tool does and distinguishes it from other delete operations on different resources, such as delete_user_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify that this is for permanently removing a tool, nor does it mention any prerequisites, such as the need for proper authorization or that the tool must exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Export Skills' does not state whether the operation is read-only, what format the export produces, or if authentication is required. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (two words). It is not verbose, but it lacks detail that would aid selection. For a simple tool, this is acceptable but not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema, the description still fails to explain what 'skills' entails or how the export result is structured. It does not help the agent understand the tool's role among many similar exports.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 applies; the description adds nothing but is not required to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Export Skills' clearly states the verb and resource, but fails to differentiate from sibling export tools like export_tools or export_models, making it ambiguous what 'skills' refers to.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 export alternatives (e.g., export_tools, export_models). The description provides no context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to mention that the tool is likely read-only, does not describe pagination behavior (skip/limit), or clarify if it requires specific permissions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified. While brevity is positive, the lack of detail outweighs the conciseness, making it only adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required, with defaults) and an output schema, the description does not explain how to use the parameters, what a thread message is, or the expected behavior (e.g., ordering, pagination). The description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter explanations in the description, the agent receives no additional meaning beyond the schema's field names and types. The description does not explain what 'id', 'message_id', 'skip', or 'limit' represent in the context of thread messages.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Channel Thread Messages' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('channel thread messages'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_channel_messages' (non-thread) and 'get_channel_message' (single message). The 'thread' qualifier provides differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_channel_messages', 'get_channel_message', or 'get_pinned_channel_messages'. No context about prerequisites or specific use cases is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns only session user's chats, pagination behavior, sorting, or error handling. The tool appears read-only but is not explicitly stated, and the description lacks necessary context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise, but it largely restates the tool name. It could be more informative without increasing length, e.g., by mentioning pagination or scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description fails to provide a complete picture. Important details like return format, error cases, and pagination behavior are missing, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. folder_id and page are not explained beyond their names and types. There is no indication of valid formats, sources for folder IDs, or how pagination works.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of chats filtered by folder ID, which matches the tool name. It distinguishes itself from tools like get_chat_by_id (single chat) and get_session_user_chat_list (all chats) by specifying the folder scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like get_chats_by_folder_id or other chat listing tools. There is no mention of exclusion criteria or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., behavior when ID not found), rate limits, or side effects. For a read operation, it fails to confirm safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (three words) but lacks essential details. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices completeness, making it minimally adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description omits typical details for a get-by-id endpoint, such as behavior on missing ID or permission requirements. The tool is simple, but the description could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the prompt_id parameter, such as format, constraints, or examples. The agent must infer all meaning from the parameter name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Prompt By Id' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_prompt_by_command or get_prompt_list, which operate by different criteria.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the 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., get_prompt_by_command, get_prompt_list). The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states 'Get User Active Status By Id'. It does not disclose what 'active status' means (e.g., boolean, enum), error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. The behavioral insight is minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence that directly mirrors the tool name, making it concise but lacking substance. It is front-loaded but does not earn its place by providing additional value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, the description is insufficient to fully understand its role among many sibling tools. It meets the minimum but has room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter 'user_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the description does not add any context about its format, purpose, or constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get) and resource (user active status) and specifies the identifier (by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like get_user_by_id and get_user_info_by_id by focusing on 'active status'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_user_status_by_session_user or other user-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or output nature (beyond what output schema provides). The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. Every word is necessary to convey the basic function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is too minimal for the tool's context. It fails to clarify what user information is included, how it differs from other user retrieval tools, or any essential operational details. The tool is simple but the description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the 'user_id' parameter beyond its title. It does not clarify the expected format, source, or constraints of the user ID, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Get User Info By Id', which clearly conveys the verb (get), resource (user info), and identifier (id). It is not a tautology since it adds 'User Info' beyond the name. However, among sibling tools like 'get_user_by_id' and 'get_user_info_by_session_user', it does not differentiate the scope of 'user info'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other similar tools such as 'get_user_by_id' or 'get_user_info_by_session_user'. The description offers no context about prerequisites, 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Delete Api Key', which implies a destructive action but offers no details on side effects, permissions, or what exactly is deleted. This is a tautology and fails to disclose behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three words and extremely concise, front-loading the essential information. While it could be more informative, it earns its place without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given it is a deletion tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description lacks context on who can delete, what key is deleted, and any side effects. It is incomplete for safe agent usage, especially with an output schema present but not explained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Delete Api Key', clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_api_key and get_api_key, but does not differentiate from other delete tools. Overall clear but lacks context on which specific API key is deleted.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or context. The description solely states the action without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states 'Delete', which implies destruction but does not explain if the action is reversible, what data is affected, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with one short sentence. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous text. However, it could include a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral context (e.g., permanence) and the absence of annotations reduce its completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning, relying solely on the tool name. While the purpose is obvious, the description adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'Chat', with the identifier 'By Id'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like archive_chat_by_id or clone_chat_by_id. However, it lacks additional context such as permanence or scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not suggest when to use delete over archive or other alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, side effects, authentication). For a config retrieval tool, one would expect at least an indication of safety, but it is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (2 words) and front-loaded, but it may be overly minimal. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, though it does not contain extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lacking annotations and the presence of an output schema (which is not described), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'Connections Config' entails or how it relates to other config tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline of 3 applies as no extra value is provided beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Connections Config' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Connections Config', distinguishing it from other config retrieval tools like 'get_admin_config' or 'get_audio_config'. It is unambiguous about what it does, though a bit terse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other get_* config tools. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or return value structure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'Get'), but no explicit safety information is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with a single sentence. While it is not verbose, it may be too brief to be useful. A few more words could improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the LDAP config contains (e.g., server URL, base DN, attributes). Without this, the agent does not know what to expect from the response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the description adds no additional semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, but the description does not mention that all LDAP config is retrieved without filters, which would be helpful. Thus a score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Ldap Config' clearly states the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_admin_config' which may also include LDAP config, or 'get_ldap_server_api_v1_auths_admin_config_ldap_server_get' which is a more specific LDAP endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not clarify when to use this over 'get_admin_config' or 'update_ldap_config'. 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description offers no behavioral information such as authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The description carries the full burden but provides none.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It avoids waste but could be slightly expanded to include typical usage context without losing efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention what the config contains or any retrieval nuances, leaving gaps for a comprehensive understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% description coverage, so no additional parameter information is needed. The description adds no extra meaning but is not deficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Tool Servers Config' clearly indicates a read operation for tool server configuration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_tool_servers_config and verify_tool_servers_config by action type, but does not elaborate on scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While siblings are obviously different actions, the description does not explicitly state use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but lacks details on what settings are returned, permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It is not verbose but also not informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what user settings are or how they relate to the session user, leaving the agent with insufficient context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters in schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no value beyond the schema, as it merely repeats the function name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'User Settings' scoped to 'By Session User'. It is specific enough, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_user_info_by_session_user or get_user_status_by_session_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only states purpose; no mention of side effects, authentication, rate limits, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no fluff, and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description lacks key details: what is returned (list, boolean per ID?), and what 'active tasks' means. Incomplete for an agent to use reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Parameter chat_ids is mentioned but not explained. Schema coverage is 0%, yet description adds no details about format, constraints, or expected values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb and resource: check which chat IDs have active tasks. While it is unique among siblings, the description is somewhat vague about what constitutes an active task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The description does not guide the agent on when to prefer this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds nothing beyond the name—no mention of pagination, permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted content. It is front-loaded and immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the numerous sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify that the endpoint returns a list or how it differs from similar tools. An agent may struggle to choose correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The baseline score is 4; the description is adequate but could be improved with a note confirming no parameters are necessary.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get All Channels' clearly states the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_channels_api_v1_channels' which likely has similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_channels_api_v1_channels' or 'get_channel_by_id_api_v1_channels'. There is no context for prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, authentication requirements, rate limits). Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it provides no details beyond the bare function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words). While it is front-loaded and to the point, it may be too brief to be helpful, leaning toward under-specification rather than conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of sibling tools and the existence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify the scope of 'all users' (e.g., system-wide or per session) or any response structure hints that the schema could provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema by implying no filters are available. A baseline of 4 is reduced because the description does not enrich the understanding of the tool's operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get All Users' clearly indicates the tool retrieves all user records. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name includes 'all' for emphasis. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_users_api_v1_users', which likely has the same purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other user retrieval tools like 'get_user_by_id' or 'search_users'. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The description merely restates the tool's name without additional context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at one phrase, but it may be too terse. It lacks structure or additional details that would aid an agent, though it is front-loaded with the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return value details are covered. However, the description does not clarify important context such as scope (current user vs. all users) or whether tags are global or chat-specific. This gap affects completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get All User Tags' clearly states the action (get) and resource (all user tags), distinguishing it from tag tools specific to chats like get_chat_tags_by_id. However, it could specify whether 'user' refers to the current session user or all users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_chat_tags_by_id or generate_chat_tags. Sibling tools exist for adding, deleting, and generating tags, but the description provides no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description merely restates the tool's action without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication requirements, data scope, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase with no redundant words. However, it may be too brief given the lack of context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fails to explain what 'default user permissions' are, whom they apply to, or how they relate to other permission tools. An output schema exists but does not mitigate the lack of semantic context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (schema coverage 100%), so the description adds no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Default User Permissions' clearly states it retrieves default user permissions. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_permissions_api_v1_users_permissions_get' beyond the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get', implying a read operation, but provides no details on auth requirements, side effects, 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), but this brevity sacrifices necessary context. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the empty input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should compensate with more detail about the manifest's nature or return values. It fails to do so, leaving the agent uninformed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the empty schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool gets 'Manifest Json', which is a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from many other getter tools in the sibling list, and the resource 'Manifest Json' is ambiguous without context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about the purpose of the manifest or scenarios where retrieval is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description must carry the burden. It only states the action without disclosing read-only nature, authentication requirements, or response characteristics. For a tool with zero annotations, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (three words) but not structured - no sentences, just a noun phrase. While efficient, it lacks standard sentence form.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no parameters and presence of an output schema, the description could still mention what the config contains or how to interpret results. It is passable but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what the empty schema indicates, but baseline 3 is appropriate since no further parameter info is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states 'Get Models Config', specifying the verb and resource. Among siblings like get_models_api_v1_models_get, it distinguishes by naming the config endpoint. However, it doesn't elaborate on what models config entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus other config getters (get_admin_config, get_audio_config, etc.) or the models list tools. Agent must infer based on name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, scope of tags returned, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise (two words), which is appropriate for a simple no-parameter tool. No wasted information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks explanation of what model tags are and how they relate to other model concepts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, and schema has 100% coverage. Description adds nothing beyond schema, but baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it gets model tags, which matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_user_tags or get_chat_tags_by_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include many tag retrieval functions, but no context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only says 'Get a specific version from history'. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication needs, error handling (e.g., if history_id not found), or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, which is efficient but lacks structured detail. It could be more informative without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain how the two parameters relate (history_id is an entry within prompt_id's history) or what the return value represents. Not complete for a tool with 2 required parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the meaning or relationship of prompt_id and history_id beyond their names. The names are somewhat self-explanatory but the description adds no value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'a specific version from history', effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_prompt_history' (getting all history) and 'delete_prompt_history_entry'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get Prompt Tags', implying read-only but not confirming. No mention of authentication, side effects, or response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at three words, but lacks substance needed for clarity. Brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema description, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what prompt tags are or how the tool behaves, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is covered, but description adds no extra meaning; however, no additional information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states it gets prompt tags, clearly identifying the resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar tools like get_model_tags_api_v1_models_tags_get or other prompt-related endpoints, missing sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many similar getter tools, and the description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the purpose without mentioning any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two words, but it is too minimal to provide meaningful guidance. It lacks structure or additional context that would help the agent, making it merely adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, output schema exists), the description could be more complete by mentioning that it returns a list of tool objects. The current description is too sparse to fully inform the agent, especially when compared to sibling tools with more elaborate descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, fulfilling a baseline of 4 per the scoring rules. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Tool List' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating it retrieves a list of tools. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., all tools, user's tools) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_tools' or 'get_tools_by_id'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_tools' or other list tools, leaving the agent without guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation but does not specify what the tool returns (image data, URL, etc.) or any side effects. The agent lacks critical behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and efficient, conveying the core action immediately. However, it could be restructured to include additional context (e.g., return type) without increasing length significantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain the return value (e.g., image data format) and usage context (e.g., where webhook IDs come from). It does not provide enough information for an agent to use the tool correctly in a real scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'by webhook ID' without explaining the format, source, or constraints of the ID. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter name and type, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'webhook profile image', and the identifier 'by webhook ID'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_channel_webhooks' (list webhooks) and 'post_webhook_message' (send messages), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retrieving other webhook information). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the webhook existing or required permissions, which are necessary for correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the title, offering no details on side effects (e.g., idempotency, permissions, state changes). This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) and front-loaded, but it sacrifices clarity by omitting necessary context. It is efficient but not fully informative, earning a 4 rather than a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to clarify what 'all chats' means (e.g., user-scoped or system-wide) and does not leverage the output schema to describe return values. The presence of sibling tools like archive_all_chats suggests a need for differentiation, which is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. Per the baseline rule for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unarchive All Chats' clearly states the action (unarchive) and resource (all chats), distinguishing it from the sibling 'archive_all_chats'. However, it lacks specificity on scope (e.g., user's chats vs all accessible chats), preventing a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_all_chats or other chat management tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where unarchiving is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only states purpose, not behavioral traits such as which user's chats are returned, ordering, pagination, or authorization requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short phrase that is front-loaded and not verbose. However, it is so minimal that it may be under-specified, though it still serves as a basic purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and a minimal description, the tool lacks context about behavior (e.g., user scope, filtering). Since an output schema exists, return format info is not needed, but behavioral context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema coverage is complete. The description does not need to add parameter information; the baseline for 0 params is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states the tool retrieves archived chats for a user, which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from a similar sibling tool 'get_archived_session_user_chat_list', which also retrieves archived chats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_session_user_chat_list' or 'get_archived_session_user_chat_list'. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only adds the behavioral trait of being public and unauthenticated. It does not disclose other important aspects like rate limits or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, but could benefit from additional details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 required parameters and no output schema; the description lacks parameter explanations and does not cover what the response looks like or potential errors.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the three required parameters (webhook_id, token, content), and the schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the agent completely uninformed about parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool posts messages via webhook and explicitly notes 'No authentication required,' distinguishing it from authenticated posting methods like post_new_message_api_v1_channels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for unauthenticated webhook message posting but does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose what exactly is reset (entire database? specific collections?), side effects, or authorization requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only three words, making it extremely concise. However, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose. It is not wasteful but is borderline under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, output schema, or parameters, the description is the sole source of information. It omits critical details about side effects, return values, and preconditions, making it incomplete for a reset operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline for no parameters is 4. It does not add value beyond the schema but also does not detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reset Vector Db' clearly indicates the action (reset) and resource (vector db). It is not a tautology and is specific, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'reset_knowledge_by_id' which may also affect the vector database.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'reset_knowledge_by_id' or 'reset_memory_from_vector_db'. No context on prerequisites or exclusions is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description only states 'Delete All User Chats' without disclosing destructive impact, irreversibility, authentication needs, or effect on shared chats. Inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very concise: single sentence with no unnecessary words. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide essential context (scope, irreversibility, authentication). For a destructive operation, it is dangerously incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no param details, but none are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete All User Chats' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (all user chats). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_chat_by_id' (single chat) and 'archive_all_chats_api_v1_chats_archive_all_post' (archive). Specific verb and resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archiving or individual deletion. Does not mention prerequisites, scope (e.g., current user only), or irreversible nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It only states it gets chats from the database, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, performance impact, or whether it returns raw data. The output schema might cover return structure, but the description adds no safety or behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence. Every word is meaningful and no unnecessary information is present. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which reduces completeness especially among many similar sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters with high schema coverage is 3. The description does not add any parameter-related information beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get All User Chats In Db' clearly states the verb (Get), resource (all user chats), and source (In Db). It distinguishes from siblings like get_session_user_chat_list by specifying the database source, but lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools like get_user_chats_api_v1_chats_all_get.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_session_user_chat_list or get_user_archived_chats. The agent has no guidance on context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description gives no behavioral context beyond 'Get', implying read-only. It does not explicitly state it does not modify state or mention any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could be slightly more informative without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and an output schema (which presumably documents return values), the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks context about the config's contents and when to use it, especially among many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter info, but with no params, this is acceptable per the baseline for 0 parameters (score 4).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Code Execution Config' clearly states the action (get) and resource (code execution config), distinguishing it from sibling 'set_code_execution_config'. However, it is very brief and could elaborate on what the config contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_code_execution_config, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get Embedding Config', omitting details like read-only nature, authentication requirements, or what happens if config is missing. The description is insufficient for transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short at three words, which is efficient for a simple getter with no parameters. It is front-loaded and concise, though could benefit from slight elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, so the description should hint at the return format or structure. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what data will be returned. However, the tool is simple, so the missing information is not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. It meets the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the embedding configuration. The verb 'Get' is unambiguous, and the resource 'Embedding Config' is specific. However, it does not differentiate from other config retrieval tools like get_rag_config, though the name is distinct enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_embedding_config. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for retrieval, or when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states the action, lacking details about what the list contains, pagination, or permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at two words, but lacks structure or context. It adequately conveys the core purpose without extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally complete given the presence of an output schema and no parameters, but fails to clarify the scope or purpose of the function list compared to similar endpoints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers param semantics. The description does not need to add further information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Function List' clearly states the action (get) and resource (function list), but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_functions_api_v1_functions', which also retrieves functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_functions_api_v1_functions or get_function_by_id_api_v1_functions_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Archive All Chats', omitting important traits such as destructiveness, reversibility, impact on active sessions, or permission requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At three words, the description is maximally concise with no wasted text. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks clarity on the scope of 'all chats' and does not explain the tool's effect or return value beyond what the schema provides. Contextual completeness is just sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Base score for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Archive All Chats' clearly states the verb (archive) and resource (all chats). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'archive_chat_by_id', which archives a single chat. The scope of 'all chats' is ambiguous (user's chats vs system-wide), but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'archive_chat_by_id' or 'unarchive_all_chats'. The description does not specify context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions streaming support and authentication headers, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, state changes, or response structure beyond conversion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, front-loaded with the key purpose, and covers conversion, streaming, model availability, and authentication in a few sentences without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should explain expected response format (Anthropic Messages API) and provide more behavioral details. It mentions response conversion but lacks specifics on error handling, streaming behavior, and limits.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter `form_data` is an object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage. The description implies it should contain the Anthropic Messages API request body, but does not explicitly describe the required fields or format, nor does it compensate sufficiently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is an Anthropic Messages API compatible endpoint that converts to OpenAI Chat Completions, distinguishing it from sibling tools like chat_completion_api_v1_chat_completions_post which likely accepts OpenAI format directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the endpoint converts Anthropic format to OpenAI internally, implying it is for clients using Anthropic API format, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs direct chat_completion, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions the disabled-by-default trait. It omits details about idempotency, side effects (e.g., token invalidation), or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an auth-related operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. However, it could benefit from a brief parameter explanation without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema coverage is zero and annotations are absent, the description is incomplete. Key details like provider options, token validation requirements, and typical response structure (despite output schema existing) are missing, limiting the agent's ability to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It doesn't clarify valid provider values, token format, or constraints, forcing reliance on the raw schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Exchange') and the resources ('external OAuth provider token for an OpenWebUI JWT'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like signin/signup or other OAuth flows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides critical usage guidance: the endpoint is disabled by default and requires an environment variable to enable. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative authentication methods or specify when to use this vs. other OAuth endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read operation but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple getter, this is adequate but could be improved.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that gets the point across without waste. It is appropriately front-loaded but could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters or output schema, the description is minimal. While functional, it does not explain what the audio config contains or its structure, which could be helpful for an agent deciding whether to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific info beyond the schema, which is baseline for 0 params. No further detail is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get Audio Config' clearly states a verb+resource action, distinguishing it from sibling 'update_audio_config' which is an update operation. However, it lacks specification of what the config contains, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for reading config while 'update_audio_config' is for modifying, leaving the agent without explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses granular session management to prevent connection pool exhaustion, session commitment before external API calls, and fresh session usage—useful behavioral context for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short but contains a duplicated sentence, which wastes space. The note on session management is front-loaded but not integrated smoothly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description lacks return values, error conditions, prerequisites, and details on what 'process' entails (e.g., chunking, embedding). The session note is valuable but insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain parameters like collection_name or content. It only mentions the file, leaving two optional parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool processes a file and saves its content to the vector database, distinguishing it from siblings like process_text and process_files_batch by indicating it handles a single file for vector storage.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain 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 process_files_batch or process_text. There are no prerequisites or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses external API calls, 5-60+ second latency, and session management strategy. However, it omits failure behavior and idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the purpose. The technical note adds value but is slightly verbose. Overall efficient for its content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks critical context about processing pipeline (e.g., chunking, embedding), error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file upload required), and duplicate handling. Incomplete for a complex batch operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It adds no parameter details: 'collection_name' is not mentioned, and 'files' is only described as 'batch of files' without structure. Agent gains no insight beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it 'Process a batch of files and save them to the vector database', specifying the verb, resource, and destination. It distinguishes from siblings like process_file (single file) by emphasizing batch operations and latency.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies batch use but does not explicitly compare to single-file alternatives or provide prerequisites. The note about latency hints at use cases but no direct when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get User Pinned Chats' with no details about authentication, rate limits, or what 'pinned' means. The output schema may help, but the description adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (4 words) and front-loaded, but it lacks any structural detail or additional context. While concise, it is under-specified for a tool that could benefit from a brief note on scope or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it does not clarify what 'pinned chats' entails or how this tool differs from other chat retrieval functions. It is adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description is adequate for this simple case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get User Pinned Chats' clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (User Pinned Chats). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_session_user_chat_list, get_user_chats, etc., which target different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidance is provided. The name implies it is for retrieving pinned chats, but there is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice compared to other chat-related tools, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no history is created, which is important for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention other behaviors like validation, idempotency, or error cases.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence, no waste. It is front-loaded with the action and key constraint. However, it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (not detailed) and sibling tools, the description is acceptable but minimal. It adds the key detail 'no history created' but lacks guidance on return values or full context for decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'name' and 'command' parameters. It does not explain required vs optional fields (e.g., prompt_id required, tags optional). The tags parameter is completely ignored.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: updating a prompt's name and command. It also includes a key behavior (no history created), distinguishing it from other update tools like update_prompt_by_id_api_v1_prompts_id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool (for name/command updates with no history), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Siblings like set_prompt_version or update_prompt_access exist, but no guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the operation ('Export') and return type but does not specify whether the export is read-only, requires permissions, or how it impacts the system. This is insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no superfluous words. It effectively conveys the essential information without clutter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks context on prerequisites, permissions, or any limitations (e.g., chat must exist). For a simple export, this is acceptable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It only says 'by ID', which is redundant with the parameter name 'chat_id' and the schema requirement. It does not explain the format, source, or constraints of the chat_id, leaving the agent underinformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool exports stats for exactly one chat by ID, specifying the return type 'ChatStatsExport'. It uses a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('stats for exactly one chat'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_chat_stats that likely handle multiple chats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing stats for a single chat by stating 'exactly one chat', which guides the agent away from using it for multiple chats. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tool names for multi-chat scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions SQL-based filtering and pagination, but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or result format. The tool name implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second adds relevant detail. No redundant or unnecessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered) and relatively good schema parameter coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the search capability, wildcard support, and performance via pagination. The only gap is the lack of explicit read-only confirmation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 parameters described). The description adds value for the 'filename' parameter by mentioning wildcard pattern support, but the 'content', 'skip', and 'limit' parameters are not enhanced beyond the schema. The pagination note is generic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'files by filename', with mention of wildcard support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_files_api_v1_files (which lists all files) and other search tools by focusing on filename and wildcard patterns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for filename search with wildcards and mentions pagination for performance, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There are many sibling search tools, but no guidance on differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It warns about heavy parallel API calls but does not state whether the operation is destructive, if it overwrites existing embeddings, or if it requires specific permissions. The lack of detail on the reset process limits transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a critical warning. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is efficient with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description covers the purpose and a key behavioral note. However, it lacks details on side effects, reversibility, or impact on other users. For a 'reset' operation, more context (e.g., does it delete existing embeddings before regenerating?) would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to add. The description does not explain how the user is identified (likely via session), but the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and no extra semantics are needed beyond what the empty schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reset user's memory vector embeddings,' which specifies the verb (reset) and resource (memory vector embeddings). This distinguishes it from other memory-related tools like add_memory or delete_memory. However, it does not explicitly mention the scope (e.g., 'for the current user') or differentiate from similar reset tools like reset_vector_db.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides critical usage warning about parallel embedding API calls leading to connection pool exhaustion, implying caution and likely use cases where reset is necessary. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description only covers the deletion action and the constraint. It lacks details on irreversibility, permissions, or error handling, but for a simple deletion tool, this is marginally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action and a key constraint. Every word is necessary and no extraneous information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward deletion tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical constraint. However, it could be improved by mentioning what happens when attempting to delete the active version or the success/failure response.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not explain the two parameters beyond what the schema titles ('Prompt Id', 'History Id') already provide. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning but fails to do so.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool deletes a history entry and immediately adds a crucial constraint—cannot delete the active production version. This distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_prompt_by_id, which deletes the entire prompt.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies it should be used to delete non-active history entries via the constraint, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_prompt_history to browse entries or set_prompt_version to change the active version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions performing user/model checks and dispatching to backends, and returns an OpenAI-compatible response. However, it does not disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear Args and Returns sections. It is informative but not overly verbose; the list of supported providers adds value. Minor redundancy in 'This handler:' line, but overall efficient for a technical endpoint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, input format, and response type (OpenAI-compatible). It does not include response structure details or error cases, but the OpenAI-compatible indication is well-recognized. Slightly incomplete for agents needing exact field names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has only one required parameter (form_data) with no description and 0% coverage. The description adds crucial meaning by explaining that form_data is an OpenAI-like payload containing model and input fields, which goes beyond the schema's bare object type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states 'OpenAI-compatible embeddings endpoint', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose: generating embeddings. It further elaborates on dispatching to backends and supporting multiple providers, distinguishing it from siblings like get_embeddings (likely for retrieval) and reindex endpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for generating embeddings with an OpenAI-compatible payload, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative embedding endpoints (e.g., get_embeddings or reindex). It lacks exclusion criteria or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that it loops through all knowledge bases, makes N external embedding API calls, and intentionally avoids holding a session to prevent connection pool exhaustion. This covers key behavioral aspects beyond 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise, front-loads the purpose, and includes necessary technical context in a note. Every sentence is valuable without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, admin requirement, and important performance implications thoroughly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information; a baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Batch embed all existing knowledge bases' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reindex_knowledge_files by focusing on metadata embeddings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly restricts to 'Admin only', providing a clear usage constraint. While it doesn't mention alternatives, this is sufficient for a batch operation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![open-webui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TETRA-2023/open-webui-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TETRA-2023/open-webui-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![open-webui-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TETRA-2023/open-webui-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/TETRA-2023/open-webui-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TETRA-2023/open-webui-mcp'

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