Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• create_folderD
  1.5/5.0
  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, yet it offers nothing beyond a one-line Italian phrase. It doesn't explain what happens when a folder with the same name exists, where folders are created (e.g., in mail? drive?), authentication requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely has side effects (creating a resource).

  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 'Crea una nuova cartella.' which is concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It's not well-structured for an English-speaking agent; the tool name is in English while the description is in Italian, which could cause confusion.

  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 there's no output schema, no annotations, and minimal schema, the description needed to provide context about return values, side effects, and prerequisites. It does none of this. The sibling tools suggest this is part of an email system (send_mail, list_folders) but without context, it's very 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%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. The schema shows `name` (string, required) and `account_id` (integer or null, default null), but nothing explains what `account_id` is, why it's needed, or what format `name` should take. The description doesn't 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.

  Purpose2/5

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

  The description 'Crea una nuova cartella' (Create a new folder) uses a verb and resource but is extremely minimal. It doesn't specify what kind of folders, where, or clarify what 'folder' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling tool `delete_folder` or other folder-related tools beyond the obvious.

  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 vs. alternatives. The sibling tools include `create_event`, `send_mail`, etc., but no exclusions or context is provided. The description fails to mention scenarios where this tool should or shouldn't be used, making it hard for an agent to know when this is the right choice.

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

• delete_messageC
  2.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that deletion involves 'two phases' but leaves the implications unexplained, and it omits important details about side effects or preconditions. This is a partial disclosure that creates more questions than answers.

  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 exceptionally concise, front-loading the core action and a hint of complexity ('due fasi'). While short, it does not waste words; however, the 'two phases' note could be expanded without losing 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?

  For a tool with four parameters, no output schema, and a hinted multi-step behavior, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain parameters, the two-phase process, or any usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly 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 description provides no information about the four parameters (message_id, folder, account_id, request_id), and schema coverage is 0%. Since the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, the tool fails to aid the agent in understanding parameter 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 the action ('Elimina' – delete) and the resource ('un messaggio' – a message), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like delete_folder. However, it omits details about the 'two phases' aspect that could enhance 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 like move_message or delete_folder. The 'two phases' hint implies a workflow but does not explain or exclude any use cases, offering no practical direction.

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

• delete_eventC
  2.6/5.0
  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 'due fasi', which hints at a two-step process, but fails to explain what these phases entail, whether deletion is reversible, or if any confirmation is needed. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence with a parenthetical. It is front-loaded with the main action decipher, earning a high score, but the extra phrase 'due fasi' is ambiguous and could have been elaborated, so a slight deduction.

  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 moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the two-phase behavior, provide return value information, or offer any parameter guidance. Sibling tools like delete_message are likely similar, but without more context, the tool is under-specified.

  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 parameter details. The schema itself only gives names (event_id, request_id) without descriptions, leaving the agent guessing about their semantics. The description mentions 'due fasi' but does not tie it to request_id, which could be crucial for the second phase.

  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 'Elimina un evento di calendario (due fasi)' clearly states the verb 'elimina' (delete) and the resource 'evento di calendario' (calendar event), and adds a unique trait 'due fasi' (two phases) that distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_message and delete_folder. It is clear, though short.

  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. There is no mention of when not to use it, such as clarifying that it is for calendar events only, not mail or foldersaca. The sibling tools imply differentiation, but the description does not explain.

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

• delete_folderC
  2.6/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at a two-phase process ('due fasi') but does not explain what that entails—whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has side effects. No caveats about permissions or cascading behavior are given.

  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 and front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place, though the cryptic 'due fasi' is additional information that could confuse without elaboration. Still, brevity is a strength here.

  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 deletion tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain the two-phase behavior, parameter roles, or any consequences of deletion. Agents cannot safely invoke this tool based on the information provided.

  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 does not explain the parameters. While folder_id is self-explanatory, account_id and request_id are entirely opaque. The description adds no value over the raw schema, leaving parameter roles 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 clearly states the action ('Elimina' = deletes) and the resource ('cartella' = folder), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_message or delete_event. However, the phrase '(due fasi)' is ambiguous and not explained, slightly reducing 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?

  There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. Users are left to infer when folder deletion is appropriate.

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

• list_eventsC
  2.8/5.0
  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 add the useful context that the tool operates on a Microsoft account (suggesting auth domain) and implies range filtering via 'intervallo richiesto.' However, it discloses nothing about read-only behavior, ordering, recurrence handling, or response characteristics, leaving significant behavioral gaps for an unannotated 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 a single compact sentence with zero wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple tool with only 2 optional parameters. It front-loads the key information without fluff. Minor deduction because its brevity borders on under-specification, but structurally it's well-formed.

  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 tool with 2 optional parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides marginal completion: the Microsoft account scoping and range concept are present. However, given the lack of annotations, the description alone leaves the agent without guidance on range semantics or how this differs from the calendar-related sibling find_free_slots. Adequate only because output schema documents return values and the tool is simple.

  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 schema param names like 'days_back'/'days_ahead' that lack inline descriptions, the description was responsible for explaining parameter semantics. The phrase 'intervallo richiesto' only vaguely gestures at the date range concept without clarifying that values are day offsets from today, how defaults interact, or edge-case behavior. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema docs.

  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 identifies the resource (calendar events) and scope (requested date range, Microsoft account). While it lacks an explicit verb, 'list' is implied by the name, and the 'account Microsoft' qualifier helps distinguish it from sibling tools like list_messages. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly frame against 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?

  No usage guidance is provided. There is no statement about when to use this tool vs. alternatives like find_free_slots or create_event, no exclusions, and no context about prerequisites. The description is entirely silent on usage context, so this scores at the 'no guidance' level.

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

• memory_statsC
  2.8/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool reports the index state, but does not indicate side effects (likely read-only), the format of the output, or any resource implications. This falls short for a zero-parameter tool where the description is the only source of information.

  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 (one sentence) and front-loaded, efficiently stating the core purpose. While it is minimal, it avoids unnecessary fluff, which is appropriate for a simple 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?

  The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides only a high-level purpose without explaining what the returned stats look like, how they might be interpreted, or when to rely on them. This is insufficient for an agent to gauge the tool's usefulness or integrate its results meaningfully.

  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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since none exist, and the schema is trivially covered. No additional param semantics are 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 states the tool reports the state of the local mail index, which is a clear purpose and distinct from siblings like list_messages or search_mail. However, it is generic and does not specify what 'state' entails (e.g., size, sync status, last updated), so it only partly conveys the function.

  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 a diagnostic tool, it would be helpful to know if it is meant for troubleshooting or monitoring, but the description offers 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.

• create_eventC
  2.9/5.0
  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 of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by noting the two-phase behavior and that invitations to others may be generated, but 'due fasi' is vague and does not explain permissions, actual effects on attendees, or what happens after event creation.

  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 short and gets the core purpose across in two sentences. The parenthetical about two phases and the date format example are useful, though the two-phase phrasing is compressed and slightly cryptic.

  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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides only minimal context. It fails to explain the invitation workflow, request_id role, return behavior, or error cases, leaving the tool under-specified 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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies start/end with ISO 8601 and an example. The remaining parameters (subject, body, location, request_id) are left undocumented in both schema and description; request_id is especially unclear given the invitation-related behavior.

  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 'Crea un evento di calendario' (creates a calendar event) and adds that it can generate invitations to others, which helps distinguish it from list/delete calendar siblings. It does not explicitly compare with siblings like list_events or find_free_slots, so it is clear but not fully 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?

  The description implies use when a calendar event needs to be created, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over send_mail, list_events, or find_free_slots. It mentions a two-phase invitation generation flow but does not clarify prerequisites, limitations, or when the invitation phase applies.

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

• list_unreadC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are present, and the description does not specify read-only nature, side effects, permissions, or how the count is returned, leaving important behavioral details ambiguous.

  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 concise single sentence with no redundant information, fully focused on the tool's 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?

  While the core function is clear, it omits details on return format (list and count structure), error behavior, and typical use cases, leaving the tool under-specified.

  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 provides no descriptions, and the tool description only implicitly relates 'days' to 'last N days'—it lacks clarification for 'top' and 'account_id' entirely.

  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 lists unread messages from the last N days and includes a count, distinguishing it from broader list_messages or search_mail.

  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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it only describes the action without contextual or comparative instructions.

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

• read_messageC
  2.9/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the body and attachment list, but does not specify whether it marks the message as read (unlikely), requires authentication, or handles errors. It doesn't mention any side effects or limitations, which is a gap 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.

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured to list the return content clearly. It earns its place but lacks additional detail that would improve utility.

  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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only mentions the ID, leaving folder and account_id unexplained. For a tool that reads a full message, the description should clarify what happens when these are not provided, what the output looks like, and any prerequisites (e.g., message exists). It is incomplete for reliable agent use.

  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 3 parameters with 0% coverage, meaning the schema only provides names/types. The description mentions 'dato il suo id' (given its id) which maps to message_id, but doesn't explain the folder or account_id parameters. The description does not clarify how these parameters are used or whether they are optional, so it fails to compensate for the low 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 clearly states the tool reads a complete message (body + attachments) given its ID, which is specific and distinguishes it from list_messages (which lists messages without full content) and read_attachment (which reads a specific attachment). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the message ID parameter, but the verb 'Legge' (reads) and resource 'messaggio completo' are clear.

  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 it: when you need the full message body and attachment list. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling tools like list_messages and read_attachment suggest its role. No explicit exclusions are provided, so it lacks strong differentiation guidance.

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

• list_foldersB
  3/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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, but it only says 'lists the folders.' It does not clarify whether nested folders are included, whether all accounts are covered when account_id is null, whether there is a default account, or whether the operation has 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.

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. For a simple list operation, this is concise and structurally appropriate, although other dimensions capture its lack of supporting details.

  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?

  This is a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, so an exhaustive description is not required. However, the description is only minimally complete: it leaves unresolved the meaning of account_id and whether omitting it targets the current/default account.

  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 account_id parameter at all. The agent cannot infer the meaning, default behavior, or optionality without additional context, making the parameter semantics effectively 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Elenca le cartelle' = lists the folders) and scopes it to the account. This clearly identifies the operation and naturally distinguishes it from sibling folder actions such as create_folder and delete_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?

  The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to supply account_id, or how it relates to list_accounts or other folder operations. It only states what the tool does, so the agent receives no explicit selection support.

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

• move_messageB
  3/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  The description includes the trait 'reversibile' (reversible), which is helpful beyond the schema. However, it omits other important behaviors like required permissions, side effects on the source folder, or error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and this minimal disclosure 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?

  The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and a key behavioral trait (reversibility) without any redundant wording.

  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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter formats, return values, error handling, and usage context, making it inadequate for reliable tool 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 provides no explanation of the four parameters (folder_id, message_id, account_id, source_folder). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the schema itself lacks descriptions, so the agent has no semantic guidance for these fields.

  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 moves a message to another folder, with the verb 'move' and a specific resource ('message'). It also notes reversibility, distinguishing it from destructive actions like delete_message. Though it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the action 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_message or list_folders. The description provides no context about scenarios, 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.

• sender_historyB
  3/5.0
  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 mentions 'dall'indice locale' (from the local index), hinting at a read operation, but does not clearly state that it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the sender is not found. This lack of explicit safety or side-effect information is a significant gap.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and output. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

  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 (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview by listing the returned data (tone, topics, recent threads). However, it lacks parameter explanations and explicit usage guidance, making it only minimally complete. It is not as sparse as a bare tautology but falls short of a fully self-sufficient 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?

  The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention the 'email' or 'account_id' parameters at all. Since the schema itself only provides basic types and defaults, the description adds no semantic meaning to the parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them 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 clearly states the tool provides sender history and profile from a local index, including tone, topics, and recent threads, for context in composing replies. While it includes a specific verb ('Storico e profilo') and resource ('mittente'), it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'list_messages' or 'search_mail', so it misses the top score.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The phrase 'contesto per rispondere nel modo giusto' implies using this tool when crafting a reply that needs sender-specific context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related tasks, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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

• get_identityB
  3.1/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for revealing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what happens if the optional account_id is omitted. The name implies a getter, but that is not explicit.

  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, compact sentence that conveys the main purpose without unnecessary verbosity. It is well-structured and easy to parse, containing no redundant 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?

  The description provides a use case (draft writing) but omits details about the tool's return value, side effects, parameter behavior, or any caveats. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to use the 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 only parameter, account_id, is not explained in the description. The schema provides no description either, and the description does not clarify its purpose, meaning, or default behavior. This leaves the parameter's semantics completely unspecified.

  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 retrieves the account's identity profile, including 'who I am / what I do / signature style', and frames it as context for writing user-consistent drafts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which appear to provide identity information.

  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 hints at usage ('useful for writing drafts consistent with the user') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks clear conditions or examples of when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit.

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

• search_mailB
  3.1/5.0
  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 discloses the hybrid nature and the degradation behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or return format. The description adds some behavioral context beyond the schema.

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

  Conciseness4/5

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

  The description is very concise, two sentences, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It earns its place by adding the degradation note. No fluff.

  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 with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the return structure, or any prerequisites. The degradation note is helpful but not sufficient for a search tool with multiple 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. It does not explain the parameters (query, top, account_id) beyond what the schema provides. The description only mentions the query concept implicitly, but no details on top or account_id. This is a significant gap.

  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 it performs a hybrid search using provider (Graph/IMAP) and local index, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_messages or read_message. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource (mail) in the description, though the name implies it.

  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 searching mail with a hybrid approach, but does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It mentions degradation to keyword search if embeddings are not configured, which gives some context but no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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

• list_messagesA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

  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 behavior. It only states that the tool lists messages, without mentioning side effects, return format, pagination, or authentication requirements. The existence of an output schema reduces some need for return detail, but the description adds no transparency beyond the basic operation.

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

  Conciseness5/5

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

  The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and the most important parameter constraint. It contains no filler and is easy to parse.

  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 adequately covers the folder parameter but ignores pagination (top/skip) and account scoping (account_id). Given that the tool is simple and has an output schema, the lack of such details is a notable gap, especially for multi-account use cases.

  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?

  With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by clarifying the folder parameter (allowed standard names and folder_id from list_folders). However, it offers no explanation for top, skip, or account_id, leaving those parameters semantically underdefined.

  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 uses the verb 'Elenca' (lists) and specifies the resource as messages of a folder, with explicit allowed folder names and a reference to list_folders. It clearly identifies the tool's function and scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_unread or search_mail.

  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 clear usage context by enumerating which folder values are valid (inbox, sent, drafts, spam, deleted, or a folder_id from list_folders). This effectively guides when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state 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.

• observer_contextA
  3.5/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the origin of the data (corrections to past drafts) and the intended use, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether it can fail, or any other behavioral traits. This is a notable gap for a tool that influences draft suggestions.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with a clear usage directive. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

  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 covers the core purpose and main usage instruction, and an output schema is declared (though its contents are not shown). However, it omits the meaning of account_id, does not differentiate from similar context/history tools, and lacks guidance on prerequisites or fallback behavior, leaving several gaps for an agent selecting 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?

  The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to sender and subject through 'per mittenti/argomenti simili', indicating they filter patterns by similarity, but it does not address the account_id parameter or explain optionality and matching behavior. Thus, it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

  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 explains that the tool provides patterns learned from user corrections to past drafts for similar senders/subjects, and that these patterns should be used when writing drafts. It clearly identifies the resource and intent, distinguishing it from email sending/reading tools, but lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'get' and does not directly differentiate from sibling tools like sender_history.

  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 phrase 'Usali per scrivere bozze che l'utente non dovrà correggere' explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: when drafting emails, to avoid user corrections. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives such as sender_history or memory_stats, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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

• mark_readA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool toggles read/unread state but does not mention potential side effects like updating counts or requiring authentication. It is not misleading but lacks depth for a mutating 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 a single, concise sentence (in Italian) that efficiently states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted information, and it is front-loaded with the core 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?

  Given the low complexity of the tool (4 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain the effect of the 'is_read' parameter beyond the implied toggle, nor any prerequisites or consequences. With no output schema, the description should have clarified what the tool returns or confirms success, but it remains a medium gap.

  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 0%, but the description mentions the core verb (mark read/unread). The input schema has 4 parameters with defaults, and the description adds no specifics on how parameters like 'folder', 'is_read', or 'account_id' are used together. Since it is a simple toggle, the schema's clear names and defaults provide most meaning, but the description could clarify the interplay.

  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 'Segna un messaggio come letto/non letto' (Marks a message as read/unread) clearly states the action (mark) and the resource (message), and implies toggling read state. It is specific enough and distinct from siblings like send_mail or delete_message.

  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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_messages or read_message. However, the clear action suggests it is for toggling read status, providing some implicit usage context, but no exclusions or alternatives.

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

• read_attachmentA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the binary is never passed to the agent, and only text extraction occurs for the listed formats. It does not discuss error behavior or permissions, but for a read-only tool this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

  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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and supported formats, with no redundant filler. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  There is no annotation or output schema, and the description omits parameter semantics and return format details. It covers the main purpose and binary behavior but leaves gaps around optional parameters and expected output 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?

  The schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not clarify the role of folder/account_id or the relationship between message_id and filename beyond obvious naming. It adds little beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

  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 a specific verb ('Estrae il TESTO') and resource ('un allegato'), lists supported formats (pdf/docx/xlsx/txt), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_message and read_knowledge_file. The binary-not-passed note further clarifies scope.

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

  Usage Guidelines3/5

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

  The usage context is implied (use when you need attachment text), but the description offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool names. It does not mention that read_message should be used for message body content instead.

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

• read_knowledge_fileA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses an important behavioral constraint: access is limited to user-registered files and never the rest of the filesystem. However, it does not mention return format, behavior when no file matches, or how partial matches are resolved.

  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 compact: two sentences, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information about what the tool does and its access scope.

  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 is relatively simple, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to cover more ground. It covers purpose, name matching, and access restrictions, yet omits behavior for account_id and the return payload. This is adequate 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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'name' parameter by noting it supports partial matching, but the optional 'account_id' parameter is completely unaddressed. This leaves meaningful parameter semantics 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 reads the TEXT of a knowledge file by name, with partial matching allowed. This distinguishes it from sibling list_knowledge_files, which lists files rather than reading content.

  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 clear context: it reads knowledge-file content by partial name and only accesses files registered to the user's account identity. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the function is straightforward and well-scoped.

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

• reply_mailA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-phase process (preview, confirm, send), which is a critical behavioral trait for a mutation tool. However, it does not mention possible side effects, authentication, or response format, though the disclosed flow is valuable.

  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, front-loaded with the core purpose and flow. Every word adds value—there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

  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 mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential workflow but lacks details on return values, error handling, permissions, or prerequisites. The two-phase flow is helpful, but overall completeness is limited given the tool's complexity.

  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 provides no parameter details. The schema lists body, message_id, account_id, and request_id, but the description does not explain their purpose or relationship to the flow. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage but does not, this is a significant 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 states the tool's function: 'Risponde a un messaggio' (replies to a message). It also introduces the two-phase workflow (preview -> confirm -> send), which is specific and helps distinguish it from sibling tools like send_mail, which creates new messages. The verb+resource is explicit.

  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 replying to existing messages, differentiating from send_mail, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The two-phase flow hints at a confirmation step, but there is no explicit 'use this when replying' guidance.

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

• find_free_slotsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that slots are precomputed and includes handling of holidays, weekends, working hours, min notice, and margins, plus mention of an Italian 'label' in the output. It lacks explicit mention of edge cases like no available slots, but for a read-only tool, this is sufficiently transparent.

  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 sentences in Italian, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

  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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the purpose and the 'label' field, but does not describe the output structure, the meaning of parameters, or edge cases (e.g., no slots found). This leaves significant gaps 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 does not mention any of the 7 parameters (work_start, work_end, max_slots, etc.). The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults, and it does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

  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 finds free calendar slots, precomputed and ready for email proposals, and explicitly distinguishes it from list_events by noting it handles holidays, weekends, working hours, min notice, and margins. This is a specific verb+resource+scope with clear differentiation from its sibling.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly says 'Use this tool instead of deducing availability from list_events' and lists the preprocessing done, giving clear when-to-use guidance and an explicit alternative. This is exactly what the rubric asks for.

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

• list_accountsA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Senza annotazioni, la descrizione deve comunicare comportamenti. Dice che non include credenziali, il che è un dettaglio utile sulla sicurezza. Tuttavia, non dichiara esplicitamente che è una lettura sicura o che non ha effetti collaterali, anche se 'Elenca' lo implica.

  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?

  Una frase essenziale, senza ridondanze. Comunica azione, oggetto e limitazione (senza credenziali) in modo efficiente.

  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?

  Per un tool senza parametri e con output schema, la descrizione è sufficiente: specifica cosa elenca e cosa non include. Non mancano informazioni cruciali per l'uso corretto.

  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?

  Il tool non ha parametri. La copertura dello schema è al 100% (vuoto). La descrizione non aggiunge dettagli perché non ci sono parametri da descrivere. Baseline per 0 parametri è 4.

  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?

  La descrizione usa un verbo specifico ('Elenca') e identifica chiaramente la risorsa ('account email configurati'), specificando anche l'esclusione delle credenziali. Questo la distingue dai tool sibling che gestiscono email, messaggi, eventi, ecc.

  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?

  Non fornisce indicazioni esplicite su quando usarlo rispetto alle alternative. Non menziona alternative o situazioni d'uso esclusivo. L'uso è implicito: per elencare account, usare questo tool. Ma manca contesto rispetto ai sibling.

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

• list_knowledge_filesA
  3.9/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It adds context (files are user-linked, useful for emails) but does not disclose return format, pagination, or side effects. For a listing tool, side effects are unlikely, but behavior beyond the name is not detailed.

  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?

  Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's role and context.

  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?

  With an output schema present (not shown) and only one optional parameter, the description provides sufficient context for a listing tool. It covers what is listed and why it's useful; remaining gaps (return format, pagination) are likely covered by the output schema.

  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 sole parameter account_id is only implied by the mention of 'account' in the description, but no explanation of its meaning or usage is given. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema detail.

  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 lists knowledge files linked to the user's account, with examples (price lists, conditions, product sheets). It distinguishes from siblings like read_knowledge_file by implying a list vs. read action, and the name corroborates this.

  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 clear context for when to use: 'use them as a source to answer emails, the info is often here, not in the prompt'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling read_knowledge_file implies a distinction; still, there's no direct 'when not to use' or alternative naming.

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

• send_mailA
  4.6/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses the critical two-step behavior and the need for explicit user consent. It does not mention potential side effects like sending limits or error handling, but the core behavioral requirement is well covered.

  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 well-structured with clear emphasis on the two-step process. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

  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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the essential workflow but lacks details on parameter formats (e.g., email address format, body format) and potential error conditions. Still, it provides key contextual information about the preview and sending phases.

  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?

  Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the request_id parameter's role, but other parameters like to, subject, body, cc, bcc, and account_id are not described in the description. However, their meaning is mostly self-evident from their names, and the critical request_id behavior is explained.

  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 sends an email and describes the two-step confirmation process with preview. It distinguishes itself from siblings like reply_mail by focusing on sending new emails.

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

  Usage Guidelines5/5

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

  The description explicitly instructs when to call without request_id (first call to show preview) and when to call with request_id (second call after user consent). This clearly guides the agent on the required sequence.

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