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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains (e.g., diffs, changed files), or any prerequisites or side effects. This is a critical gap for a comparison tool.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks critical information, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful guide. Front-loading fails because there is almost no content.

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

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

With 7 parameters, including nuanced logic for sourceType/targetType and straight, and no output schema or annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the comparison semantics, expected output, or edge cases like branch/tag name conflicts, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool safely.

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 schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., straight, sourceType, targetType). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the baseline is set at 3 given the comprehensive schema.

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

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

The description 'Query code to compare content' is vague; it doesn't specify what is being compared (commits, branches, tags) or the output format. It fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_commit or list_commits, which also deal with code content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where comparing references is appropriate or when to use other commit/branch tools instead.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly states the mutation (creating a branch), but it does not disclose behaviors such as that the branch is based on the ref parameter, what happens if the branch already exists, permission requirements, or side effects. The description is not misleading, but it is thin on behavioral detail.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that directly states the action and resource, with a short '[Code Management]' context prefix. It contains no filler or redundant explanation, is easy to parse, and front-loads the most important 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 a simple create operation with fully documented schema fields, the description is almost sufficient. It does not mention output/return values, but no output schema is declared and creating a branch typically has a minimal response. The main gap is missing context about branch source or failure conditions, which the schema partially covers via the ref parameter.

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 all parameters (ref, branch, repositoryId, organizationId, ref default) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantics about parameter values, relationships, or accepted formats, so it stays at the baseline without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource ('a new branch') and says the branch is created in a Codeup repository. It immediately distinguishes this from siblings such as get_branch, delete_branch, and list_branches, so the agent can choose it based on the creation intent.

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

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

The description implies the tool is used whenever a new branch is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any preconditions, exclusions, or conflicting scenarios. There is no guidance about choosing this over other branching-related tools, only the general intent implied by 'Create a new branch.'

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It restates actions and parameter categories ('Supports specifying...') and adds only a hint about optional AI review. It does not disclose permissions, side effects, what happens after creation, or error conditions, making behavioral transparency weak.

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 states the action and lists key supported options in a compact parallel structure. There is no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately concise for a create-tool description.

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

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

The schema provides rich parameter details and required fields, while the description gives a sufficient overview for tool selection. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not describe return values or side effects; still, the schema's completeness covers most invocation needs.

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%; every parameter has a detailed description with examples and constraints. The tool description offers only a high-level summary (branches, reviewers, work items, AI review) that does not add meaning beyond the schema, 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?

The description states 'Create a new change request (merge request)' with a specific verb and resource, clarifying the merge-request equivalence. It lists key capabilities (source/target branches, reviewers, work items, AI review) that distinguish it from sibling get/update/list/review/merge tools.

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

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

The verb 'Create' clearly signals when to use this tool, and the parenthetical '(merge request)' adds context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for updates use...'), so it provides clear context without exclusionary 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the two comment modes and parameter requirements, but does not mention permissions, side effects, or draft behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with a context tag, and packs essential information about types and required parameters with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 params, two types, no output schema), the description covers the key decision of comment type and its prerequisites. It doesn't explain every optional parameter, but the schema covers those, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a useful grouping of inline-only parameters, but the schema already provides detailed semantics for each parameter. No significant additional meaning beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Create a comment on a change request.' It further distinguishes between GLOBAL_COMMENT and INLINE_COMMENT, which clarifies scope and differentiates from sibling tools like create_commit_comment.

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

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

The description provides clear context on when to use each comment type and explicitly lists the required parameters for INLINE_COMMENT. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios relative to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It gives no information about side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what happens on successful creation. The 'create' verb implies a mutation but does not specify any consequences or return behavior, which 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.

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

The description is a single concise sentence that is entirely front-loaded. It avoids any filler or repetition, achieving maximum efficiency. Every word adds value, making it an exemplar of conciseness.

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

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

The tool has four required parameters and no output schema, yet the description offers nothing about return values, error conditions, or typical scenarios. It is a simple create action, but the lack of any behavioral context or usage examples leaves the agent without enough information to fully understand execution. Given the minimal description and absent annotations, this is insufficient.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (in Chinese), so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter information; it only restates the action. Since the schema already covers the parameters, the description does not need to add more, but it also doesn't provide any usage nuances beyond the schema.

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

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

The description states 'Create a comment on a commit', which is a clear verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_change_request_comment and create_work_item_comment by specifying the target as a commit. It is specific but lacks any additional context about the commit scope (e.g., whether it's a review comment or general).

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action without any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. Among sibling comment-creation tools, there is no differentiation in usage context, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

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 controlled-field constraint and the update_work_item limitation, but it does not mention permissions, response behavior, or side effects of creating the record. Some context is added, but not comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and the key constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundant 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 create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is short but effective. It states the purpose, identifies the required object, and highlights the critical controlled-field constraint. It does not cover return values or permission requirements, but the schema and tool name cover most operational context.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context for actualTime by identifying it as the controlled field, but it does not meaningfully explain the other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('登记实际工时' / register actual work hours) and the object (effort record). It also distinguishes the tool from update_work_item by explaining that actual work hours is a controlled field requiring this dedicated tool.

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

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

The description explicitly says when this tool must be used: actual work hours (fieldId 101587) is a controlled field and cannot be modified via update_work_item's customFieldValues. This provides a clear exclusion of the main alternative.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the special nature of the field (controlled field) and that the operation is a registration action. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, whether it overwrites existing values, or if it requires any additional prerequisites beyond the parameters. This is adequate but 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.

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

The description is two sentences, with the first providing the verb and resource, and the second adding critical context about the field's control. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff.

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

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

The description is sufficiently complete for a CRUD-like tool with a clear verb and special constraint. It explains the uniqueness of this tool relative to update_work_item. Given that there is no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It does not list prerequisites or edge cases, but for a simple registration tool with a well-defined purpose, this is adequate.

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 all 7 parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the key semantic that spentTime maps to the estimated effort field (fieldId 101586) and that the tool is required for this field. However, it does not explain the relationship between owner, spentTime, and id beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to register estimated effort (预计工时) for a work item in Yunxiao. It specifies the exact field (fieldId 101586) and explains that it cannot be modified via update_work_item's customFieldValues, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_work_item and create_effort_record.

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

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: when the estimated effort field (a controlled field) needs to be set, and explicitly notes that update_work_item cannot be used for this purpose. It provides a clear alternative (update_work_item) that should not be used for this specific field, giving strong usage 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says that a new file is created and does not mention commit/branch semantics, whether existing files are protected, permissions needed, encoding behavior, or side effects such as commit creation.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. The '[Code Management]' prefix provides minimal category context and does not add meaningful verbosity.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description is not enough to explain end-to-end behavior such as commit creation, branch handling, encoding effect on content, or what the tool returns after success.

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 7 parameters. The prose description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline expected for fully covered schemas.

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

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

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Create a new file in a Codeup repository.' The verb 'create' and resource 'new file' make the purpose distinct from sibling file operations like update_file and delete_file, though it doesn't explicitly call out those siblings.

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

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

The description implies usage for adding a brand-new file, which differentiates it from update_file or delete_file. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, and no reference to alternatives or prerequisites like branch existence.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context by noting the repository is empty and pushable via git, but this is potentially misleading because the schema supports templateProject and readMeType, which would make the repository non-empty. It also omits side effects, permission requirements, duplicate handling, and response behavior.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Use Cases' line is redundant and adds little value, but overall the description avoids unnecessary verbosity and is easy to scan.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description only covers the basic creation scenario. It fails to mention important behaviors like template-based creation, README auto-generation, visibility options, or what happens after creation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the 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 the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Create'), the resource ('Codeup repository'), and the intended result ('empty code repository that can then be pushed to via git'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_repository, list_repositories, and create_branch by focusing on repository creation.

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 'Use Cases' section is generic and tautological ('Create a new repository for a project'), providing no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an organization or namespace, nor any contrast with related repository tools.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency, but it only restates the tool name. It does not disclose what a sprint creation entails, such as whether existing sprints are affected, required permissions, or what happens on success. It adds no behavioral detail beyond a tautology.

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

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

The description is short and front-loaded, with no unnecessary filler, so it is concise. However, the single sentence merely restates the tool name and does not earn its place by adding value. It is not a well-crafted standalone summary.

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 creation tool with eight parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It fails to describe expected behavior, creation outcome, effect on sprint timelines, or any constraints that are not obvious from the schema. Given the sibling tools include list_sprints and update_sprint, the description should have provided more operational context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter meanings are already fully documented in the input schema. The description itself does not add any additional detail about owners, date formats, capacity, or relationships between parameters.

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 'Create a new sprint' clearly identifies the action (create) and the resource (a sprint), and the word 'new' distinguishes it from update_sprint and get_sprint. However, it does not elaborate beyond the basic action, so it doesn't fully differentiate from sibling create tools in other resources.

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 gives no explicit context for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_sprint or list_sprints. It implies creation, but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or common scenarios. The tool name and 'new' are the only signals about appropriate usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the core behavior ('Create a new version') and adds domain context, but it does not disclose permissions, idempotency, duplicate-name behavior, or response format. This is adequate but not rich.

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

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

The description is front-loaded with the action, followed by a concise purpose statement and a tight bullet list of use cases. Every sentence earns its place; there is 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?

For a 6-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the tool's role and typical use. It omits return-value details and edge-case constraints, but the schema covers parameter validation and the use cases cover selection intent.

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 6 parameters. The description adds value by framing 'Set version owners and dates' as a use case, which gives semantic context to owners, startDate, and publishDate beyond their raw schema descriptions.

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

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

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new version in a Yunxiao Project.' It clearly distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like update_version, delete_version, and list_versions by emphasizing 'new version' and adding domain purpose (release plans, delivery progress).

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 'Use Cases' section gives clear context for when to create a version: new release version, project milestones, setting owners/dates. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_version for modifying existing versions, but the creation context is unambiguous.

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

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

The description discloses important behavioral constraints: the description field supports Markdown/rich text and requires formatType to be set accordingly; the URL returned from create_workitem_attachment is a temporary signed URL that expires in 30 seconds; and effort fields are system-controlled and cannot be modified via customFieldValues. These are non-obvious behaviors that the user needs to know.

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

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

The description is well-structured with bullet points and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is slightly verbose due to the inclusion of detailed examples and warnings, but each sentence adds value and addresses important edge cases. The length is justified given the complexity of the tool.

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

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

Given the tool has 15 parameters including a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the most contextually important aspects: the special handling of description, the prohibition on modifying effort fields, and the essential workflow for attachments. It does not explain every parameter, but it addresses the areas where users are most likely to make mistakes, making it sufficiently complete.

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

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

While the input schema provides basic descriptions for each parameter, the tool description adds critical semantics: it clarifies how to handle the description and formatType parameters (including the caveat about Markdown), warns against putting effort fields in customFieldValues, and explains the role of the attachment-related steps. This goes beyond the schema to provide essential parameter usage context.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's function as 'Create a work item', and provides additional context about handling description and effort fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing users to alternative tools for specific sub-operations (e.g., attachment upload, effort records).

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

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

The description provides explicit usage instructions: it explains the three-step process for inserting images (create attachment, get embedMarkdown/embedHtml, then update work item), and instructs users to use dedicated tools (create_effort_record, create_estimated_effort) for effort fields instead of customFieldValues. This effectively guides when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral details such as the temporary nature of the returned URL (30s expiry), the permanent nature of embedUrl, the security risk of filePath, file type exclusions (svg/tiff), and size limits. This is very transparent and goes beyond basic expectations.

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

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

The description is long but well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. Every sentence provides necessary detail, though it could be slightly more concise in places (e.g., the operatorId wording is a bit confusing). The front-loaded purpose and organized format earn it a high score, though not perfect due to minor verbosity.

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, so the description must explain return values. It does so thoroughly, listing key fields (id, name, size, suffix, url, embedUrl, embedMarkdown, embedHtml) and their meanings and use cases. It also provides integration guidance with update_work_item, making the tool self-contained and complete.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the conditional relationship between fileContent, fileName, and filePath, when each is required, base64 size overhead, basename default, and the disabled state of filePath in remote deployments. This greatly enhances parameter understanding.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool uploads a file as an attachment to a work item via multipart/form-data, with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies file type and size constraints, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_workitem_attachments and get_workitem_file.

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

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

The description explicitly differentiates when to use fileContent vs filePath based on deployment mode (remote vs local), warns against using filePath in remote deployments, and provides a standard three-step method for embedding images in work item descriptions. It also clarifies operatorId requirements for different token types.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and gives no information about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or any behavioral implications of creating a comment. No transparency is provided beyond the basic action.

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

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single clear sentence. It contains no redundant information or fluff, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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

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

The description is adequate for a simple create operation but lacks contextual details such as return values, authentication requirements, or conditions for use. Given the tool's simplicity, the minimal description covers the basic function, but it does not provide enough to fully understand when and how to use it in a broader workflow.

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

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

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters ('content', 'workItemId', 'organizationId'), but they are terse one-liners (e.g., 'comment content', 'work item ID', 'organization ID'). The tool description adds no additional explanation or context for these parameters, so the semantics rely solely on the schema's minimal labels.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Create a comment for a specific work item'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_work_item' (which creates a work item) and 'update_work_item_comment' (which updates a comment).

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, conditions, or context where this tool should be preferred over 'list_work_item_comments' or 'update_work_item_comment'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention any side effects, permissions, or failure conditions, leaving potential uncertainties about the operation's impact.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that conveys the essential function without redundancy. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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

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

The description mentions the return value, which is helpful given the absence of an output schema. It adequately covers the core operation, though it could benefit from a note about preconditions (e.g., that the test case and work item must exist).

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

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for each parameter (in Chinese), and the tool description adds no additional clarification about parameter roles or constraints. It meets the baseline for coverage but adds no extra meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Relate a test case to a work item.' It also notes the return value (relation record id), making the purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like listing relations.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies a creation action, but lacks guidance on appropriate contexts or distinctions from other relation-related tools.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Delete' without noting that this is a destructive, likely irreversible action, potential cascading effects, or any required permissions. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short, though it lacks any structured breakdown. The brevity is a positive, but it sacrifices informative content.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't specify consequences (e.g., permanent deletion), required permissions, possible errors, or what happens on success. Given the tool's complexity (simple but destructive), the description should provide more context.

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

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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

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

Description clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (branch from a Codeup repository). It is specific and unambiguous, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_branch or get_branch, though the verb makes the purpose obvious.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for decision-making.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only states that a file is deleted, without disclosing that deletion is permanent, that a commit is created with the provided message, or any permission/effect details. 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.

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is appropriately short for the tool's basic purpose, though this brevity sacrifices behavioral detail captured in other dimensions.

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 five required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to understand the destructive side effects, commit behavior, or branch context. The schema covers parameter mechanics but not the behavioral context needed for safe use.

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

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

The input schema documents all five required parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delete'), identifies the resource ('a file'), and names the system ('Codeup repository'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling create_file and update_file tools. It is unambiguous and does not merely restate the tool name.

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

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

The description provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. The verb and resource make the intended use obvious compared to create_file/update_file, but this is implied rather than stated, and there is no mention of when not to use it.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the operation as delete but fails to mention whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to associated data, or if any prerequisites/permissions are needed. This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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

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

The description is concise and efficient, with a clear one-line purpose followed by two succinct use cases. No unnecessary words or repetition, earning a strong score.

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

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

Given the destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description should address irreversibility, side effects, or error conditions. It only states the action and use cases, leaving out crucial safety information needed for an agent to invoke this tool responsibly.

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

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

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Delete a version from a Yunxiao Project' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like update_version and create_version. The use cases further reinforce what the tool does.

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 use cases 'Remove obsolete versions' and 'Clean up project versions' provide clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like update_version for non-destructive changes, so the guidance is more implied 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?

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions irreversibility, it does not disclose other critical behaviors like whether related data (e.g., comments, attachments, relations) is also deleted, whether cascading effects occur, or if there are any permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the core action and a critical warning. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. No fluff or redundant information.

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

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

Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks detail about post-deletion effects, confirmation requirements, or error scenarios. The schema fully covers parameter documentation, but for a high-stakes operation like delete, more behavioral context (e.g., cascading deletes, permission checks) would be expected for full completeness.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning both parameters are described in the schema (workItemId as 'unique identifier, required parameter' and organizationId as 'Organization ID'). The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific information, but since the schema already fully documents them, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; however, the irreversibility note contextually emphasizes the importance of workItemId, giving it slight extra value, so a score of 4 is warranted.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool deletes a work item, uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('work item'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_work_item' and 'create_work_item'. The irreversibility note adds important context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

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, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would infer it should be used when a work item needs to be permanently removed. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, such as cases where a work item should be deactivated instead of deleted, or any prerequisites (e.g., no associated children). It provides only implied usage context.

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

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags destructiveness, and the description adds the specific object being removed and how to source the relationRecordId. It doesn't discuss reversibility or side effects, but the annotation plus targeted description cover the main behavioral trait.

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 single sentence, front-loaded with the category and containing a clear action, target, and parameter-source hint. No filler or redundant content.

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

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

For a simple three-required-param destructive tool with a destructiveHint annotation and no output schema, the description is functionally complete: it covers what is removed and where the required relation ID comes from. It doesn't include error behavior or permission requirements, but these are not essential here.

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

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention that relationRecordId comes from list_workitem_testcase_relations is useful but largely repeats the schema's 'list or create' provenance note.

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

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

Description uses specific verb 'Remove' with clear resource 'test case relation from a work item' and identifies the key parameter (relationRecordId). It clearly differentiates from sibling create/list_workitem_testcase_relations tools.

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

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

States that relationRecordId must be obtained from list_workitem_testcase_relations, providing clear prerequisite context. It doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention create_workitem_testcase_relation as the alternative, but the usage 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?

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get information about a branch', with no mention of return shape, error conditions, read-only guarantees, or special behavior.

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

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

The description is one concise, easily parsed sentence. The '[Code Management]' category prefix is somewhat redundant but does not significantly reduce quality.

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

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

For a simple get operation with no output schema and no annotations, an agent would likely want more context about the response structure or branch identity details. The description is adequate but leaves the actual information returned unstated.

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

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

The input schema already documents all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles 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?

The description specifies a clear action ('get information') and a target ('a branch in a Codeup repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_branches or create_branch. It is not a tautology, though it could be more specific about what branch details are returned.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_branches or get_file_blobs. There are no mentions of prerequisites, exclusions, or contrasting scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no additional behavioral details beyond the verb 'get'. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention side effects, permissions, or error conditions, leaving the burden on the description entirely unmet.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the purpose without fluff.

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

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

For a simple get operation with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and action, though it does not elaborate on the return structure or possible error cases, which is acceptable given the simplicity.

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

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

The schema descriptions for all three parameters are clear and complete (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only refers to 'its ID', which could ambiguously map to any of the three. Since schema coverage is high, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (get) and the resource (change request/merge request) with a specific identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_change_requests by indicating it retrieves detailed information for a single item.

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

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

The description implies usage for fetching a single change request by ID, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives such as list_change_requests. Guidance is only inferred from the verb and parameter.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Get information') but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return details, permissions, or side effects. For a simple fetch operation, the risk is low, but transparency is limited.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with a category tag. It contains no redundant or unnecessary words, and the structure is perfectly efficient.

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

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

The tool is low complexity with three well-documented parameters, but the description does not mention the return payload or any output expectations. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could add value by noting typical commit details returned, but it remains minimally adequate for a simple get operation.

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

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

Schema descriptions fully cover all three parameters (sha, repositoryId, organizationId) at 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, relying entirely on the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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

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

The description 'Get information about a commit' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (commit), and is distinct from sibling tools like list_commits. It could be more specific about what information is returned, but it unambiguously conveys the primary action.

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

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

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus list_commits or other commit-related operations, nor any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name, offering minimal contextual direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating the token-based origin of the data and the precedence behavior. For a simple read-only, zero-parameter tool, this is adequate, though return shape 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.

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and adds the key precedence detail without extraneous text. Every sentence 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?

This is a simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description gives enough context for an agent to select it correctly, including the token-based nature and precedence rule. It could list specific returned fields, but the current level is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about organization ID precedence even though no parameters are present, which is valuable for understanding why no org parameter is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the exact resource ('information about the current user and organization based on the token'). It also distinguishes this from siblings like get_current_user and get_user_organizations by emphasizing token-derived context and precedence when no organization ID is specified.

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 context is clear: this tool is appropriate for retrieving token-scoped current user/organization info. The precedence statement ('this result will take precedence') provides a usage condition, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the result is token-based and takes precedence when no user ID is provided, which is useful context. It does not explicitly declare read-only behavior or error handling, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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

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

The description is two short sentences: the first states the core action, and the second adds a key precedence nuance. There is 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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and a precedence rule. It could specify what 'information' is returned, but the simple context makes this sufficient.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description's mention of 'based on the token' clarifies that authentication is implicit rather than a parameter, fitting the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about the current user based on the token, using the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'current user'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch other users or organization info.

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

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

The description provides clear context by noting that this result takes precedence in the absence of an explicitly specified user ID, indicating a key usage scenario. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, stopping short of full 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get file content,' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, response format, permissions, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral information for a tool with no annotation support.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with a useful category prefix. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant wording, and every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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

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

The tool has four required parameters, all fully described in the schema, and the description clearly states the primary action. However, with no output schema and no behavioral notes, the description itself is somewhat thin; it is adequate for selection and invocation but lacks richer context about return values or edge cases.

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 fully documents all four parameters (ref, filePath, repositoryId, organizationId). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'Get file content from a Codeup repository.' This is specific enough to distinguish from mutation siblings like create_file, update_file, and delete_file, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other get_* tools (e.g., get_commit, get_repository).

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like list_files, get_commit, or get_workitem_file.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only restates what the tool does. It does not disclose ordering, whether the department itself is included, depth, authorization needs, or error behavior. 'Get' implies read-only but adds little beyond the name.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It states the verb and resource directly, making it appropriately concise for a simple read operation.

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 low-complexity tool with only two parameters and no output schema. However, the description leaves ambiguity about the return format, ordering, and edge cases such as whether the root department is included. It is minimally viable but lacks richer context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'Department ID' and 'Organization ID' already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the ancestors of a department in an organization.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_organization_department_info and list_organization_departments.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the tool's purpose; no explicit when/when-not context is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get information,' which implies read-only, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, permissions, or whether any related data is included. This adds little beyond the tool name.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that is immediately readable and front-loaded with the action and target. There is no filler or redundant content.

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

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

For a simple get-by-ID tool with two clearly documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify what 'information' is returned, leaving a notable gap for an agent predicting the tool's result.

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% for both parameters ('Organization ID' and 'Department ID'), so the structured schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, such as where to find the IDs or how they relate, but the baseline is met because the schema handles 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?

The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get information about a department in an organization.' It identifies the target as a single department, which distinguishes it from list_organization_departments and get_organization_department_ancestors, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives or specify what 'information' includes.

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

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

The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the required IDs. There is no mention of when to choose this over list_organization_departments or get_organization_department_ancestors.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details beyond the basic action. It does not disclose whether the member must be an active member, what type of information is returned (profile? roles? department?), or any access requirements. This leaves the tool's behavior largely opaque.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that communicates the core purpose without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.

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

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

For a simple two-parameter lookup tool, the description is minimal but lacks important context about the return value or the relationship to sibling tools. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify the scope and content of the returned member information, especially given the close sibling 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id'.

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 both parameters ('memberId' and 'organizationId') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema fully documents the parameters, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get information') and the resource ('a member in an organization'), which is specific and matches the tool name. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id' by implying lookup by member ID rather than user ID, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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

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

The description implies a straightforward use case: retrieving a member's information from an organization. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus the closely related 'get_organization_member_info_by_user_id' or 'search_organization_members', so usage guidance remains implicit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning read-only nature, required permissions, potential failure modes, or returned data characteristics. For a get operation, it's reasonable to assume read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no extraneous words or fluff, making it easy to scan.

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

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

The description is too sparse for an unannotated tool with no output schema. It does not explain what 'information' is returned, how it differs from get_organization_member_info, or any constraints like whether it requires membership confirmation. Given the complexity of the domain (organization tools), more detail is expected.

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 both parameters described (user ID and organization ID). The description restates the userId purpose but adds no new meaning about organizationId or how the parameters relate. It provides minimal additional value over the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (get), resource (member information), and scope (by user ID within an organization). However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_organization_member_info or list_organization_members, which could lead to ambiguity about when this specific variant is needed.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_organization_member_info, list_organization_members, or search_organization_members. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusivity, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only restates that it retrieves role info; it does not mention permissions required, whether it can return null/404, rate limits, or what fields are included in the response. For a read operation it is acceptable but minimal.

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

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

Description is one short sentence, zero fluff, front-loaded with the context tag. Highly concise.

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

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

This is a simple read tool with 2 simple parameters, so the description being basic is partly acceptable. However, given that there's no output schema or annotations, a bit more information about what information is returned would improve completeness. The tool could be adequately understood by an agent but leaves room for improvement.

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

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

Schema coverage is 100% with roleId and organizationId described as 'Role ID' and 'Organization ID' respectively. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description says 'Get information about an organization role,' which clearly indicates the verb (get) and resource (organization role), but it does not explicitly distinguish it from related tools like get_organization_member_info or list_organization_roles. The [Organization Management] prefix gives some context but adds no differentiation.

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 usage guidance is provided beyond the basic purpose. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or when to choose this over sibling tools like get_organization_member_info or list_organization_roles.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must convey the behavior on its own. The phrase 'Get project information' communicates a read operation, but it adds no details about permissions, required organization context, response shape, or whether this returns full project details or only a subset. It is adequate, not rich.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and immediately understandable.

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

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

The tool is a simple retrieval operation with only two required parameters, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks guidance on differentiating it from search_projects and does not hint at the expected return payload, so a few minor context gaps remain.

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

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, placing it at the baseline for a fully documented 2-parameter tool.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about a single Yunxiao project. It uses a specific verb+resource construction and is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish single-object retrieval from the sibling search_projects tool.

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

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

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_projects. The description gives no context about the intended workflow or prerequisites, so an agent gets no help deciding between fetching by ID and searching for projects.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'get information,' which implies read-only but does not disclose any additional traits such as required permissions, potential errors, or side effects.

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

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that states the action and target. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured, making it easy to parse.

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

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

For a simple getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not elaborate on what 'information' entails or when this tool is most useful, though it is sufficient for basic usage.

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

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

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (repositoryId and organizationId), covering 100% of them. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to retrieve information about a Codeup repository. This is distinct from sibling tools that handle other entities like commits or change requests.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or scenarios where this getter would be preferred over other repository-related operations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information' without revealing return format, explicit read-only nature, pagination, or potential side effects. While 'get' suggests a read operation, no additional context is added beyond the tool name.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with a category prefix. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains zero redundancy. The prefix '[Project Management]' is optional but does not detract from clarity.

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

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

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what information is returned. It only says 'information' without specifying sprint fields such as name, dates, or status. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is functional but lacks necessary detail for full completeness.

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

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

Input schema coverage is 100% for all three required parameters (id, projectId, organizationId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the schema already fully documents each parameter's purpose, making this acceptable.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'sprint', clearly indicating a retrieval operation for a single sprint. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sprints (lists multiple), create_sprint, and update_sprint by focusing on retrieval.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given. The verb 'Get' implies usage for retrieving a single sprint, but the description does not explicitly state that list_sprints should be used for multiple sprints or note any exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It communicates a read-only 'get' action with no side effects, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, pagination behavior, ordering, or handling of an empty organization list. For a simple zero-parameter query this is adequate but not rich.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It directly states the action and result without repeating structured schema 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 a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete. It specifies exactly what data is returned (organizations for the current user), though it does not describe the exact response shape or edge cases like empty results.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameters. The description adds meaningful context about what is being listed, aligning with the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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

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

The description states the exact operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the list of organizations the current user belongs to.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_current_organization_info or get_current_user by focusing on all organizations for the current user.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need the current user's organizations. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative, such as get_current_organization_info for a single current organization.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get information.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether special permissions are required, what information is returned, or potential error conditions. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is implicit rather than explicit.

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

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

The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence with a useful category prefix. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, the brevity comes at the cost of valuable behavioral and usage details.

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?

Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the vague phrase 'information about a work item' leaves the expected return value unclear. The description does not explain what fields or level of detail are returned, nor does it clarify the role of organizationId beyond the schema.

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 both workItemId and organizationId are documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get information about a work item.' It clearly identifies the tool as a retrieval operation for a single work item, distinguishing it from related tools like get_work_item_types, get_work_item_workflow, and list_work_items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'get_*' siblings for work item sub-resources.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_workitems or list_workitem_activities. The description only states the basic operation with no mention of appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that it returns file name, size, suffix, and a temporary download URL, and explains the two supported ID formats. This is sufficient for a read-only retrieval operation, though it does not detail permission requirements or URL expiration behavior.

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

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and awkward structure while packing in ID-format distinctions and return-value details.

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

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

For a simple read-only fetch tool with 3 required params and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies required inputs and explains what will be returned, including the temporary URL. It could go a bit further by clarifying error scenarios or URL expiry, but it is well-suited to support tool selection and invocation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the structured schema already documents all three parameters. The tool description adds some context around the 'id' parameter (file IDs vs attachment IDs), but this largely duplicates the schema description. It does not meaningfully supplement the meaning of organizationId or workitemId beyond the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Get file information for a specific work item', giving a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes between file IDs and attachment IDs, and lists what is returned, making it easy to tell apart from related tools like list_workitem_attachments.

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 establishes clear usage context: use it to retrieve a single file/attachment for a work item when you have a specific ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the specificity of 'specific work item' and the ID-format explanation provide strong practical 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as whether it returns all fields, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if the ID is invalid. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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

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

The description is concise, consisting of a single sentence with a clear prefix. It is front-loaded with the domain context and the action. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not explain what 'details' includes, nor does it mention any related information like field configurations or workflows that might be relevant. However, for a basic get operation, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('id' and 'organizationId') having descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not explain the relationship between the parameters or any format requirements.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to get details of a specific work item type. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('work item type'), and the '[Project Management]' prefix provides context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item_types' (plural) and 'list_work_item_types' by specifying 'a specific' work item type, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving details of a single work item type, which is clear from the context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_item_types' or 'list_work_item_types', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention authentication needs, response semantics, or any side effects. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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

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

The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the domain tag and a clear action. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's function without redundancy.

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

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

For a simple retrieval tool with three fully documented parameters, the description provides the core purpose. However, without an output schema, it could still mention what kind of field configuration data is returned, and it lacks any comparison to sibling tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters documented in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but because the schema fully describes the parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get field configuration for a specific work item type.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like get_work_item_type and get_work_item_workflow by targeting the field configuration aspect.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_work_item_types or get_work_item_type. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which the field configuration is needed.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation but does not mention permissions, return format, pagination, or any other side effects. Minimal information beyond the basic purpose.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, starts with a category tag, and contains no fluff. It is highly concise and well-structured with all information front-loaded.

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

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

Given the lack of an output schema, the description does not describe the return structure (e.g., a list of work item type objects). For a simple list tool, this omission is notable. It also does not contextualize the 'category' parameter or its optional values beyond the schema. Adequate but with 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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get the list of work item types') and scopes it to a project, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from some siblings like 'list_all_work_item_types' by the project scope but does not explicitly explain how it differs from 'list_work_item_types'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar siblings such as 'list_work_item_types' or 'get_work_item_type'. The phrase 'for a project' implies context but does not specify exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets' information, which implies a read operation, but does not specify whether it returns the full workflow definition, requires specific permissions, or any side effects. For a simple retrieval, this may be acceptable, but the lack of detail limits transparency.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is not verbose and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative without compromising conciseness, such as clarifying the output, but it remains efficient.

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

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

The tool has 3 required parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema. The description is minimal but functional for a simple retrieval. Given the absence of annotations and the simplicity of the operation, the description is minimally complete but could benefit from mentioning what the returned workflow information contains or when one might need 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (projectId, organizationId, workItemTypeId) with meaningful names and Chinese descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it is adequate but not enhanced. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description 'Get workflow information for a specific work item type' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (workflow information for a work item type). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_work_item_type (which retrieves type definition) and get_work_item_type_field_config (field configuration), making its purpose specific enough. However, it could be more explicit about what 'workflow information' entails.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description is purely functional and does not help the agent decide between this and related tools like list_work_item_types or get_work_item_type.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the literal action without disclosing behavioral details such as pagination, result ordering, authentication requirements, or performance implications. The description adds no context beyond what the tool name already implies.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and scope. There is no fluff or redundant 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 a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, the lack of differentiation from similarly named sibling tools and the absence of any behavioral/return details leave room for ambiguity. It's minimally viable but not fully complete.

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

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

The schema covers 100% of the single parameter (organizationId) with a description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter context. Per the baseline, a schema coverage of 100% warrants a 3 without needing description compensation.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all work item types') with an organizational scope ('in an organization'). However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_work_item_types' or 'get_work_item_types', which appear to have similar purposes.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies organizational scope but offers no criteria for selecting this tool over similar sibling tools such as 'list_work_item_types' or 'get_work_item_types'.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. The simple 'list' implies read-only, but it is not stated.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no filler but is perhaps too terse for the tool's complexity.

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

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

For a tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or how search/sort interact, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like page, sort, search, and perPage.

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

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

The description clearly states it lists branches in a repository, which is distinct from sibling tools like get_branch or create_branch. However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., whether it returns all branches or honors filters).

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

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_branch. The description only states the action without any context on prerequisites, such as needing repository access or when listing is appropriate.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the filtering behavior and defaults (e.g., default state OPENED, default commentType GLOBAL_COMMENT) but does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether the tool returns both global and inline comments if no type is specified. The description is accurate but not exhaustive.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and lists filters concisely. No wasted words.

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

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

The tool has 8 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the main filtering capabilities and defaults, which is sufficient for a list operation. It could mention pagination or response format, but given the schema richness, it is reasonably complete.

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 parameters. The description adds a brief summary of filters but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It mentions filePath is for inline comments, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool lists comments on a change request, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a change request'). It also enumerates the filtering dimensions (comment type, state, resolved status, file path), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_change_request_comment and update_change_request_comment.

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

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

The description implies usage for retrieving comments with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_work_item_comments for work items). It provides clear context on what it does but lacks explicit exclusions or 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that patch sets are 'different versions of the merge request as it evolves,' which adds useful domain context. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, describe pagination/ordering, or mention any required permissions or side effects.

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

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the domain category and the core action. Every sentence adds useful context without wasted words.

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

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

The schema fully covers the required parameters, and the description defines the key domain concept. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention what the response contains or any behavior such as ordering or pagination, leaving some gaps for a list operation.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly, including examples for localId and repositoryId. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('List patch sets') and explicitly defines what patch sets are in the context of a change request. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_change_request_comments or get_change_request.

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 '[Code Management]' prefix and the explanation of patch sets imply when the tool is relevant (inspecting versions of a merge request/change request). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_change_request or list_change_requests, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It mentions functional capabilities (filtering, pagination, sorting) but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or return format. For a list operation it is reasonable but not exhaustive.

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

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

The description is concise, two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently lists key features without redundancy.

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

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

With 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main capabilities but omits details on return structure, error handling, or limits. It is adequate for a standard list tool but leaves some 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% and each parameter has detailed descriptions. The description adds a high-level summary of filter categories (repository, author, reviewer, etc.) that mirrors the schema definitions, offering marginal added value over the schema.

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

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

The description clearly states 'List change requests' with verb+resource, and distinguishes from siblings like get_change_request and create_change_request. It also lists supported features (filtering, pagination, sorting) that set it apart.

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

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

The description implies usage for listing change requests with filters, but does not explicitly contrast with single-fetch get_change_request or other alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit 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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the tool's action without revealing any side effects, rate limits, default behaviors, or response characteristics. It adds minimal value beyond the tool name, though it doesn't mislead, so it scores slightly above the lowest.

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

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with a category tag, providing maximum information in minimal words. It contains no fluff and directly communicates the tool's purpose. Every character earns its place, exemplifying conciseness.

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

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

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the tool's output, filtering behavior, or pagination. It does none of that, leaving the agent to infer essential details. The description is too sparse for a tool of this complexity, making it incomplete.

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

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

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter-level context, but the schema already explains each parameter's meaning, including defaults (e.g., refName defaults to repository default branch). Therefore, the description does not need to compensate further.

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 'List commits in a Codeup repository' clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'commits', and adds the repository context. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_commit by implying a collection operation, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, resulting in a minor deduction. Overall, it is specific and understandable.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_commit or list_change_requests. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. As the rubric notes, this is 'no guidance' which merits a score of 2.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral rule: the time interval must be ≤6 months, which is not in the schema. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, error behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only status.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with a category prefix, and contains no extraneous information. Every word contributes to purpose or the key constraint.

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

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

The tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and a constraint but does not clarify the scope (current user vs all users) beyond the tool name, nor mention what is returned. Adequate but with gaps in usage guidance and return value expectations.

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%, providing baseline of 3. The description adds a relationship constraint between startDate and endDate (6-month limit), which is meaningful semantics beyond the individual parameter descriptions. This extra context justifies a 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?

The description states '获取用户的实际工时明细' (get the user's actual work hours details), which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly mention 'current user' (though the tool name does) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool list_effort_records, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_effort_records. The description mentions a constraint (the interval between endDate and startDate cannot exceed 6 months), which is parameter-related but not tool-selection guidance. No exclusions or contexts are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the tool gets actual effort details. It does not mention any filtering behavior (e.g., by work item id), permissions, pagination, or return format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguities for a list operation.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any additional context or structure that would help the agent, so it feels more like an incomplete stub than a well-crafted concise description.

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

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

The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters and no output schema, but the description is minimal and provides no context about return values, filtering semantics, or when to choose this over sibling effort tools. Given that sibling tools exist with overlapping domains, this description is insufficient for complete understanding.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters have clear descriptions ('工作项唯一标识' and 'organizationId'). The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does provide the domain context that these parameters relate to actual effort records, which justifies the baseline score of 3.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: '获取实际工时明细' ('get actual effort details'), making the core function clear. It identifies the resource as actual work-hour records, which implicitly distinguishes it from estimated efforts, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like list_current_user_effort_records.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_estimated_efforts or list_current_user_effort_records. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states that it retrieves details, without mentioning safety, side effects, pagination, or return format. For a list operation, it does not even clarify that it returns multiple items. This is a minimal disclosure falling short of the burden.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately brief, but could include more substance without becoming verbose. Efficiency is good, though it sacrifices informative content.

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

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple list operation, the description is overly terse. It does not explain what is returned, whether it is a list, how parameters relate, or any constraints. It is incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke and interpret results.

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 both parameters having descriptions, though 'organizationId' is just a name repeat. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does nothing to enhance parameter understanding.

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 '获取预计工时明细' (get estimated effort details) clearly identifies the action (retrieve) and resource (estimated efforts). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_estimated_effort and update_estimated_effort, and from list_effort_records which targets actual effort records. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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

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. It does not mention that this tool is for estimated efforts specifically or contrast it with list_effort_records. The description offers no context on appropriate usage scenarios.

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