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 transparency. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or what happens with large channels. The bare statement leaves the agent uninformed about runtime 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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short sentence with no redundant content. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it may be too sparse to provide a complete picture.

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

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

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is not fully specified. The description does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a clear gap.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100% (both channel_id and limit have descriptions), so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, maintaining 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 'Get posts from a channel' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (posts from a channel), which is distinct from sibling tools like get_thread, get_post, and search_posts. However, it does not add any scope details (e.g., sorting, filtering) that would further differentiate it.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no stated contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and offers no decision support.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose behavioral details such as error handling, response format, or whether the full post object or just text content is returned. The description only states the basic function.

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 with no redundant words, front-loading the action and object.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is adequate but does not explain return value structure or potential errors, which is significant given the absence of an output 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?

The schema already documents post_id with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond confirming the lookup is by ID, which the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single post content') and specifies the lookup method ('by ID'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channel_posts (multiple posts) and search_posts (search-based).

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 when a specific post ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'single' and 'by ID' phrasing provides clear context, earning a 4.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not state whether it returns replies, the order of content, or whether any side effects occur. It also lacks any mention of permissions or response format.

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

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

The description is a single, succinct sentence that immediately states the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify what 'thread content' includes (e.g., original post plus all replies) or how it relates to 'get_post', which is important for an agent to select the right tool. It lacks contextual completeness despite being short.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter post_id with a clear description ('26 alphanumeric characters'). The tool description adds minimal meaning by referencing 'by post ID', but it does not provide additional context beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since schema coverage is high.

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'), identifies the resource ('Mattermost thread content'), and specifies the scope ('by post ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_post (which likely retrieves a single post) and get_channel_posts (which lists posts in a channel).

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_post or search_posts. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, 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?

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose and provides no details about the return structure, whether it returns counts or full messages, authentication requirements, or what 'summary' entails. This is a significant gap for an agent attempting to interpret the tool's output.

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 clear sentence that immediately states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or repetition. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

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

Given the tool has four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but has gaps. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or how the summary is presented. However, the schema covers parameter semantics and the purpose is straightforward, so the tool is usable for simple cases, but a thorough agent would need more details about the response.

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 has 100% coverage, with each of the four parameters having descriptive text. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not clarify defaults, formatting, or interactions beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema fully documents the 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('unread messages, threads and channels summary'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_thread or list_channels, which deal with specific read operations or channel listings rather than a consolidated unread summary.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions under which a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The optional parameter hints (e.g., defaults to first team) imply some usage context, but no direct comparison or selection guidance 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 present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, without explaining the return format, error behavior, or authentication requirements. The non-destructive nature is implied by 'Get,' but no further behavioral context is given.

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

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

The description is a single, short sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words, and it is properly front-loaded.

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

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

For a simple getter, the description is adequate but lacks detail about what 'user info' includes and how errors are handled. Without an output schema, the agent is left to infer the return value, which is a minor gap.

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

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

The schema already documents the single parameter (user_id) with a description, and coverage is 100%. The tool's description merely restates that it retrieves by ID, adding no additional semantic 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user info'), and the 'by ID' clarifies the scope. Among siblings focused on threads, posts, channels, and messages, this is the only user-specific getter, making it well-distinguished.

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/when-not guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is self-evident from its name and description. Usage is implied (when you need user info), but there's no mention of alternatives or prerequisites, which would be helpful but not critical for a simple getter.

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 behavioral burden. It only states a basic read operation without disclosing whether authentication is needed, whether private channels are included, or what the response format is.

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

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

Extremely concise, single declarative sentence with no wasted words. Information is front-loaded 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves ambiguity about default behavior when team_id is omitted and what kind of channels are returned. It could be more complete but is not severely deficient.

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 the single parameter (team_id) at 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Team ID' explanation.

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 specifies the action ('List') and resource ('channels') with a scope ('in team'). It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on threads, posts, users, or messages.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of how the optional team_id affects results, and no exclusions. Usage must be inferred 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search posts in team' without explaining return format, result limits, ordering, or what 'team' scope means. It does imply a read-only operation but lacks 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 extremely brief, consisting of a four-word phrase. While concise, it is under-specified and fails to convey essential context, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful 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?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what posts are searched (all posts vs. specific channels), how results are returned, or any limitations. The sibling tools provide context, but the description does not reference them.

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 basic descriptions for both query and team_id. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify query semantics or how team_id filters results.

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 'Search posts in team' uses a specific verb 'Search' and resource 'posts', making its purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_post and get_channel_posts, which retrieve specific posts or channel posts, though the scope 'in team' is somewhat unclear.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_channel_posts or get_post. There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the tool name and schema.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It does not mention authentication requirements, whether messages are persisted, rate limits, or any side effects, leaving the agent to infer the 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, but the description provides only a minimal statement. It does not explain return values, failure modes, or required context (e.g., user identity), leaving the description incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 both channel_id and message parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expected for full 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 'Send message to channel' clearly states the action (send) and the target (channel), which distinguishes it from the sibling read/search/list tools. However, it lacks specificity about message type or delivery context, so it doesn't fully leverage 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the operation without contextualizing it relative to other tools like get_channel_posts or search_posts.

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Test Mattermost connection' without revealing whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes network requests, or what the return value signifies. The agent cannot infer side effects or expected outcomes from this minimal description.

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 three words, and every word is necessary. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no superfluous content. For a simple zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately sized.

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 very low complexity: no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose. However, the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure) or any behavioral details needed to interpret results. It is sufficient for basic intent but leaves a gap in expected response handling.

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

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

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The schema already fully documents the empty parameter structure, and the description adds no new information about parameters because there are none. No compensation 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 'Test Mattermost connection' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating it verifies connectivity to Mattermost. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_thread, send_message, and search_posts by focusing on connection status rather than data operations.

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 checking connectivity but offers no explicit context on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. Its purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can infer appropriate use, but guidance on prerequisites or fallback options is absent.

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