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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: existing files are preserved unless overwrite is true, the release job is skipped if the version already exists, and publishing uses trusted publishing via OIDC. These are real operational details an agent needs. It stops short of stating whether changes are committed or what the response contains, so not a 5.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary artifact and conditions, then appends the optional artifact and the overwrite caveat. Despite its length, every clause conveys distinct, non-redundant information with no filler.

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

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

For a file-generating tool with no output schema, the description covers what is written, the trigger conditions, and the preservation semantics, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is whether it also stages/commits the new files (a sibling git_commit exists) or what the result looks like on partial failure.

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

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

Schema coverage is 75%, so the schema already documents dir, release, and registry. The description adds genuine meaning for overwrite (existing files kept unless true) and clarifies the release.yml trigger condition, but says nothing about dir or the registry enum values beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the parameter burden.

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

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

The description names the exact artifacts it writes (.github/workflows/ci.yml and optional release.yml) and enumerates their contents (install, lint, build, test; tag-triggered release with OIDC publishing). This is a specific verb+resource statement that an agent can distinguish from siblings like create_github_repo, publish_package, or setup_trusted_publishing without opening the schema.

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

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is for scaffolding CI/release workflows in a project, and the description clarifies when release.yml is or isn't produced (release option, existing version). However, it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use this one (e.g., versus scaffold_project or preflight), leaving routing to inference.

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

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

destructiveHint=false is already declared in annotations, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that no commit is made, but says nothing about which manifest file is edited, what happens if the CHANGELOG is missing, or whether the change is reversible.

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

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

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the key constraint front-loaded. Nothing redundant.

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

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

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: target manifest file, CHANGELOG creation/formatting behavior on failure, and whether notes is required for a meaningful entry.

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

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

Schema coverage is 67%: dir and notes are documented in the schema, while level has only its enum/default. The description restates the patch/minor/major options, which reinforces level but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.

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

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

States a concrete verb+resource ('Bump the manifest version') plus the two side effects (CHANGELOG entry, no commit). It does not name or differentiate from near siblings like git_commit or tag_and_release, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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

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

Usage is implied — you bump before committing or releasing — but nothing states when to use this versus git_commit or tag_and_release, nor any prerequisites (clean tree, existing manifest, existing CHANGELOG). 'Does not commit' hints at sequencing without spelling it out.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the fallback: when a name is taken it returns the best free alternative, preferring a scoped @user/name for npm. That is real context beyond the annotations, though return shape and rate/error behavior are still unstated.

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

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

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose (check validity and availability) and then the fallback behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries some return-value burden, and it partially does so by explaining the taken-name fallback. With 100% schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only error/edge behavior is left implicit.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (registry enum, repoName, packageName) documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb (check) and two concrete resources (package name validity/availability on the registry, and GitHub repo name availability). An agent can distinguish this from inspect_package (which inspects existing packages) and create_github_repo. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

The description explains what happens on the 'taken' case but never says when to reach for this tool (e.g. before publish_package or create_github_repo) or what alternatives exist. Usage is only weakly inferable from the tool name and context, with no explicit 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.

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

Annotations cover the open-world/safety profile (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the auth requirement and the idempotent behavior when the repo is already the folder's origin. It doesn't describe what happens on partial failure or conflicting remotes, keeping it from a 5.

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

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

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the command shape, then prerequisites, then the idempotency case. No filler, though the CLI syntax is somewhat cryptic for a reader without gh knowledge.

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

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

For a 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, effect, and repeat-run behavior adequately; annotations supply the safety profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as remote/owner handling on partial failures.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50%: dir and name are documented in the schema, visibility has an enum, and description is undocumented. The description maps visibility to the CLI --public|--private flags but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource (create a GitHub repo) and even shows the underlying CLI invocation, so the effect is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like git_commit or publish_package, but the action is distinct enough to be selected correctly.

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

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

Prerequisites are stated ('Needs a commit and a GitHub login'), which is real usage context, and the re-run case is described. However, no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are named, so the agent gets context but not routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the load. It meaningfully adds that the tool auto-runs git init on branch main when needed, refuses when secrets/.env files would be committed, and stages ALL changes before committing — valuable side-effect disclosure. It omits whether a commit is skipped when there's nothing staged.

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

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

A single dense sentence with zero waste that front-loads the setup and guard behavior before the core commit action. Every clause carries information.

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

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

No output schema exists, yet the description covers init, guard, staging, and commit behavior. It stops short of describing the return (e.g., commit hash or a no-op result), which would be the only remaining gap for a two-parameter mutation tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so dir and message are already documented by the schema. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

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

States a concrete verb and resource (stage everything and commit) and reveals the setup/guard steps around it. It distinguishes the operation clearly from siblings like tag_and_release or run_checks, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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

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

It implies when the tool is appropriate through the 'if needed' init clause and the secrets refusal, which acts as a precondition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to sibling tools such as scan_secrets for pre-checking.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe, network-touching read, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by naming the external toolchain invocations, the fact it enumerates would-be-published files, and that it performs junk/secret flagging.

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

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

A single densely-packed sentence where each clause earns its place (dry run, file listing, junk/secrets). Front-loaded with the primary action; only the parenthetical toolchain examples risk being mildly verbose.

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

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

With no output schema, the description carries responsibility for return content and does so by naming the file list and junk/secret flags. It is adequate for a one-parameter read-only tool; finer details like exit codes or per-ecosystem output shape are omitted but not critical.

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

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

Only one parameter (dir) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it with path semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

States a specific action (run the registry dry run) with concrete underlying commands for npm, twine, and cargo, plus the two outputs (file list, junk/secret flags). It is clearly distinct from publish_package by being a dry run, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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

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

The 'dry run' framing implies this belongs before an actual publish, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (publish_package, run_checks, scan_secrets are all plausible neighbors). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered; the description still adds real value by naming the platform package managers and, importantly, warning that Windows installs may require an MCP client restart for PATH updates. It omits failure behavior (e.g., what happens with an unknown or already-installed tool), keeping it out of the top band.

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

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and platform mapping, followed by the allowed values and the Windows PATH caveat. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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

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

For a single-parameter install tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the platform-specific mechanisms, valid inputs, and the post-install PATH caveat, which is what an agent needs to call it. It stops short of describing failure handling or pointing to verify_install as the follow-up step.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'name' parameter carries an enum, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description's 'known tools' list merely restates the enum members and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (install) and resource (CLI tool) and even names the platform-specific backends (winget/brew/apt), so an agent immediately knows what this does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling verify_install, which covers the adjacent verification concern, so it falls short of the top band.

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

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

Usage is only implied: the title and the 'known tools' list suggest this is for filling a missing dependency, but the description never says when to reach for this versus verify_install, preflight, or inspect_package, nor does it state any exclusion or precondition. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden. It usefully explains the waiting and Enter-prompt behaviors, but never mentions the stop parameter's effect (killing/restarting a publish) and gives no sense of return shape or mutation implications.

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

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the behavioral options. No filler or redundancy.

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

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

With no output schema, the description does tell the agent the return content ('status and recent output'). It is largely complete for a status-check tool, with the omission of the stop parameter's behavior as the main gap.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only one genuinely new semantic ('without an id, lists all jobs') and repeats wait/Enter behavior already documented in the schema; stop is left solely to the schema.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the status and recent output of a login or publish job') and clarifies that omitting the id lists all jobs. It never names a sibling such as watch_workflow or check_names, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation from the closest alternatives.

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

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

It describes the available modes (wait up to waitSeconds, send Enter, list all jobs without an id), which implies when each applies, but there is no guidance on choosing this tool over siblings like watch_workflow or on prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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

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

Annotations only cover openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false; the description carries the real behavioral load by disclosing that the call is asynchronous and returns immediately with a job id, one-time code and URL, that a human must complete sign-in/2FA/Authorize, and the polling cadence for completion. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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

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

Three dense sentences: purpose first, then the async return contract, then the follow-up polling action. Every clause carries actionable information with no filler.

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

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned artifacts (job id, one-time code, URL) and the terminal condition for polling (running is false). For a two-parameter async login tool, nothing needed to invoke and follow through correctly is missing.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the enum by mapping each service to its concrete login mechanism (gh auth login --web, npm login --auth-type=web), implying each service behaves differently. No detail is added for openBrowser, keeping it at 4.

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

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

Specific verb ('Start the browser-based login') plus the exact resource, with the supported services enumerated (github, npm, pypi, crates). An agent can distinguish this from job_status, preflight, or setup_trusted_publishing without reading the schema.

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

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

Gives the operative workflow: call it, hand the code/URL to the user, then 'Poll job_status every 1–2 minutes until running is false,' naming the sibling to use next. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. if credentials already exist), so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, and the description adds nothing behavioral: it doesn't say whether the notification blocks, whether it requires user interaction, whether it is fire-and-forget, or how failures surface. For a user-facing side-effecting tool, the description should carry more.

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

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

One short sentence with an inline example; front-loaded and free of waste. It is appropriately sized, though brevity comes partly at the cost of omitting parameter clarification.

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

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

A simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations beyond destructiveHint=false, and the description leaves both parameters along with all behavioral traits unexplained. It is not adequate for reliable invocation despite the low complexity.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never explains that 'title' is the notification heading (with a default of 'publish-pilot') or that 'message' is the body text. The example only illustrates message content.

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

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

Clear verb+resource: 'Show a desktop notification', which is unambiguous and distinct from all siblings (no other notification tool exists in the set). It does not need to differentiate against a near-duplicate, so a 4 is right rather than a 5.

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

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

No when-to-use guidance is given; the example content ('Ready for your approval') hints at approval workflows but never states when an agent should call this or any prerequisite/alternative. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context that annotations do not cover — the hard host allowlist, the use of the default browser, and the failure mode for disallowed hosts. It still omits whether the page contents are returned or what the response looks like, but that is a modest gap for this simple tool.

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

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

Two short sentences, no filler, and the positive capability is front-loaded ahead of the refusal constraint. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and only two annotations, the description supplies the critical constraints (protocol, allowed hosts, failure on other hosts) an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It could add a word on return behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It does partially compensate by implying the URL must be https and its host must be in the allowlist, which is meaningful constraint information beyond a bare 'string'. It still gives no full URL syntax or example, so the gap is only partly closed.

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

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

The description names a specific verb and resource (open a page in the default browser) and pins the exact scope with an explicit host allowlist. That scope statement alone distinguishes it from every sibling in this server, none of which open external pages.

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

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

It effectively states when the tool works (github.com, npmjs.com, pypi.org, crates.io) and when it will not ('Other hosts are refused'), which is a clear usage boundary. It does not name alternative tools to use instead, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them by promising 'Starts no logins', i.e. it inspects auth state without mutating it, which is the key risk an agent would want confirmed. It does not describe what output or failure signal results, but the added value over annotations is genuine.

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

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

Three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the critical usage instruction ('Run this first') placed at the end for emphasis. No filler or repetition.

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

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

For a parameter-light, read-only preflight tool it covers what is checked and when to call it. With no output schema, it could say more about what the result reports (e.g. pass/fail per dependency or remediation guidance), which is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% with two enum parameters (target, registry) that are self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The description never mentions target or registry, adding no meaning beyond the schema, though nothing is left ambiguous.

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

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

States a precise verb ('Check') and enumerates the exact resources inspected: git, gh, registry CLI installation, logged-in accounts, and git identity. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Starts no logins' (vs. login) and by its 'Run this first' positioning ahead of install_tool/login. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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

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

'Run this first' gives explicit ordering guidance for a workflow of sibling tools, and 'Starts no logins' implicitly routes authentication to the login tool. It does not name an alternative explicitly or state when-not to use it, but the intended call context is clear.

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

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

Goes well beyond the sparse annotations: it discloses that the version-exists case is silently skipped, that the call returns an async job rather than a completed publish, that an approval page is opened in the user's browser (a side effect annotations do not cover), and that retry is expected when links expire. These are exactly the behaviors an agent needs to plan around.

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

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

Four short sentences, verb-first, with the alternative commands, idempotency behavior, return shape, and retry guidance each in its own clause. No filler and nothing buried.

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

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

For a 3-parameter, output-schema-less tool it covers the essentials: what it publishes, the skip condition, the async job return, and the browser link lifecycle. It omits authentication prerequisites and any mention of dryRun, which leaves a modest gap for a tool with an openWorldHint annotation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 67%: 'dir' and 'openBrowser' are documented in the schema, and the description's browser-approval sentence loosely reinforces openBrowser, but 'dryRun' is undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries most of the load.

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

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish from the terminal') and enumerates the concrete registry commands it drives (npm publish, twine upload, cargo publish), leaving no doubt about what it does. It does not explicitly name how it differs from close siblings like tag_and_release or setup_trusted_publishing, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Gives real operational context: it is idempotent ('Skips when the version already exists') and tells the agent to re-invoke if the approval link expires. It never states prerequisites (login / trusted publishing already configured) or when a sibling such as tag_and_release should run instead, so no explicit exclusions.

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

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry behavior, and it does add real value beyond that: fail-fast semantics ('stops at the first failure') and the fact that the failing step's output is returned. It still omits notable traits such as long runtime, network/package downloads, and that running install modifies the working directory.

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

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

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the action and scope, the second states the failure/output behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description does state that the failing step's output is returned, and it covers the parameter's role indirectly. It stops short of describing runtime expectations, side effects of installing dependencies, or what a successful run returns.

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

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

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Project folder (absolute path, or relative to the server's working directory)'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no path syntax or resolution detail beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline.

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

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

Names a specific verb ('run') and resource (the project's install, lint, typecheck, build and test steps), then enumerates the supported toolchains (npm, Python .venv/pytest/build, cargo clippy/build/test). This is enough to separate it from generic siblings like run_command, install_tool, and verify_install without opening any schema.

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

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

Usage is implied: this is the whole-pipeline verification tool, so an agent can infer it is the one-shot 'check my project' call. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named (e.g. run_command for a single command, install_tool or verify_install for narrower steps), so routing is left to inference.

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

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

Adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: output is redacted of tokens, and specific classes of destructive commands (force-push, deleting tags/repos/releases, unpublish, recursive delete) are refused. Annotations already flag openWorld and destructive, so this enriches with the refusal policy. Doesn't mention default timeout behavior or 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.

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does and the platform detail, then the refusal policy. No waste.

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

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

For a 3-param tool with no annotations explaining timeout/cwd and no output schema, the description covers the command and refusal policy well but leaves parameter meanings and the 300s default timeout fully unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps given the safety-critical nature of executing arbitrary shell commands.

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

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

Schema coverage is 0% – none of the three parameters (command, cwd, timeoutSeconds) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't explain command format, cwd semantics, or timeout behavior, leaving all params undescribed. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

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

States a specific verb (run) and resource (shell command line), including the platform-specific interpreter (PowerShell on Windows, sh elsewhere). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_checks or git_commit, which are narrower.

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

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

Implies general command execution, but doesn't say when to prefer a dedicated sibling (e.g., use git_commit instead of running raw git commands) or when-not to use it. Usage is implied by purpose rather than guided.

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

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

The annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: 'Never overwrites existing files' is a meaningful safety guarantee, and the manifest contents (version 0.1.0, author from git config, publishConfig for scoped npm) disclose concrete side effects. It stops short of stating failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the dir doesn't exist or a partial scaffold occurs), which keeps it from a 5.

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

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

Two dense sentences; the artifact list is front-loaded ahead of the conditional workflow behavior and the non-overwrite guarantee. No filler, every clause conveys actionable information.

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

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

For an 8-param creation tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers what is produced and the key safety property. Gaps remain around return value, failure modes, and whether the target directory must pre-exist, but nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description restates the repoUrl-to-workflows trigger, which largely duplicates the schema's own default for 'workflows', and adds only marginal non-schema meaning (author from git config, scoped-npm publishConfig).

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

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

States a specific verb (create/scaffold) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (source, tests, README, LICENSE, CHANGELOG, .gitignore, .gitattributes, manifest) with concrete defaults. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_github_repo, add_workflows, and publish_package without needing to open any schema.

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

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

Usage is implied by the artifact list: this is for bootstrapping a fresh project. The conditional 'Adds CI and release workflows when repoUrl is set' gives some behavioral context, but no when-to-use/ when-not guidance is offered, and the relationship to the sibling add_workflows (which also manipulates workflows) is not disambiguated.

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

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

With only readOnlyHint=true declared, the description adds real value: it defines the scan scope (staged/committable content) and, importantly, discloses the output behavior that 'reports file and line, never the secret itself' — a meaningful safety property for a secrets scanner with no output schema. It stops short of noting limits, e.g. whether it blocks commits or is purely advisory.

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

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

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the scan scope comes first and the reporting guarantee second, both front-loaded and each earning its place.

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

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

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece — what the results look like and that secrets are never echoed. Minor gap: no guidance on how findings should influence subsequent actions (e.g. whether to proceed with git_commit).

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents 'dir' fully. The description adds no path-format or scope nuance beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

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

States a specific verb (scan/look for) and concrete resource set (.env files, private keys, tokens) scoped to 'everything that would be committed', which is more precise than a generic file scan. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like preflight or check_names, so it falls just short of 5.

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

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

The phrase 'everything that would be committed' implies the pre-commit context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among siblings (preflight, run_checks). Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

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

Annotations only give openWorldHint/destructiveHint, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses interactive steps, a 2FA approval requirement, that it opens a browser, that some registries only return values for the user to paste, and that the user must click Save. It does not state whether the npm command mutates config remotely or what happens on failure, so not a full 5.

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

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

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the registry-specific branches. No filler, though listing three registry behaviors in one block is slightly compressed.

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

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

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back (a settings page fallback, or exact values to fill in) and covers all registry branches. An agent has enough to call it and set expectations for the interactive hand-off.

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

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

Schema coverage is 50%: dir and repo are documented, but openBrowser and workflowFile have no descriptions. The description indirectly conveys both (it 'opens the settings page' and targets the 'GitHub release workflow'), yet it never names or maps to those parameters, so it only marginally compensates for the gap.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Connect the package to the GitHub release workflow') with the key mechanism (OIDC, no stored tokens). The action is distinctly not publish_package, add_workflows, or login, and an agent can tell what it accomplishes without opening the schema.

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

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

The description explains the per-registry flow and implies it is the OIDC alternative to stored tokens, but never states when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., vs login/token setup) or any when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates remote state without destruction. The description usefully reinforces that guarantee ('Never moves or deletes tags') and discloses the release-notes source (CHANGELOG.md). It omits prerequisites such as required auth, remote/branch state, or what happens if the tag already exists.

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

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

Two tight sentences with the primary action sequence front-loaded and the safety guarantee placed last as a constraint. No filler, no restatement of the title, every clause carries information.

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

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

With no output schema and only partial annotation coverage, the description should carry more of the operational burden for a network-mutating tool. It explains the happy path and release creation but says nothing about prerequisites, failure modes, or idempotency when the tag already exists. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the tag naming convention ('v<version>') beyond the schema. It contributes marginal extra meaning, so it stays at baseline.

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

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

States a precise, sequenced set of verbs and resources: create tag from manifest, push branch and tag, optionally create the GitHub release. This is unmistakably distinct from commit/publish/check siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling (e.g., bump_version must precede it), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

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

Usage is only implied through the action sequence and the release-notes source; there is no explicit when-to-call or when-not-to-call statement. The 'Never moves or deletes tags' line hints at safe re-running but does not say so directly. An agent can infer ordering vs bump_version but must do the work itself.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: execution happens in an isolated brand-new temp folder, installs come from the real registry, git clone is an alternative path, and installed executables land on PATH. It omits cleanup behavior, timeouts, and how failures are surfaced.

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

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

Two sentences with the core scenario front-loaded and no filler. The PATH note is a useful trailing detail rather than padding, though a bit more structure around outcomes could be added without bloat.

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

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

This is a complex tool that installs packages and executes arbitrary commands over the network, with no output schema and minimal annotations. The description covers the setup scenario but says nothing about return values, error reporting, timeouts, or cleanup, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent invoking it.

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

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

Schema coverage is 60% (command, repoUrl, registry documented; name and version are not). The description loosely maps to registry and repoUrl ('from the real registry (or git clone the repo)') but adds no syntax, format, or defaults for the undocumented name/version parameters, so it only partially compensates.

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

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

The description states a concrete verb+resource: install the published package into a fresh temp folder and run a command, framed as a new-user verification. The 'brand-new temp folder' isolation makes the clean-room intent clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like install_tool or preflight.

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

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

Usage is implied by the scenario ('verify like a new user', 'such as the README quick start'), giving the agent a concrete example of the intended command. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as install_tool or preflight.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the call blocks until the run finishes and returns the failing log on failure. It does not say what happens on timeout or how waitSeconds bounds the wait.

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

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

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the failure-output detail appended rather than buried. Nothing extraneous, though the parenthetical default is redundant with the schema.

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

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

For a no-output-schema, four-parameter tool this covers the essential promise (block until done, report result, include failing log). It leaves open what happens when the wait expires and whether it observes an already-running run or triggers one, which an agent needs to reason about before calling.

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

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

Schema description coverage is only 50% (workflow has a default but no description, waitSeconds has no description at all). The description restates the release.yml default already present in the schema and says nothing about dir, ref, or waitSeconds, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource: wait for the latest run of a workflow and report its result. An agent can distinguish it from run_checks, job_status, or add_workflows. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when a non-blocking status check is wanted.

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

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

The word 'Wait' implies this is a blocking/poll-until-done call, typically after a workflow has been triggered, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternative such as job_status is named for agents that want a non-blocking check.

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