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 mentions 'discover and initialize' but does not clarify what 'initialize' entails (e.g., authentication, configuration, or pairing), potential side effects, or any prerequisites beyond the input parameters. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of device initialization and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'initialize' means in practice, what happens if no device is found, or what the expected outcome is, leaving critical contextual gaps for the agent.

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 parameters (email, password, deviceIndex) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why these parameters are needed or how they affect the discovery process, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('Automatically discover and initialize') and resource ('first RoboVac device found'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_connect' or 'robovac_connect_discovered', which may have overlapping or related functions, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 whether it should be used for initial setup or in specific scenarios. With multiple sibling tools available, the lack of explicit usage context or exclusions leaves the agent without clear 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Connect' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what happens on successful/failed connection, whether this establishes a persistent session, authentication requirements beyond credentials, or potential side effects. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information ('Connect to your RoboVac') and adds necessary context ('using device credentials (manual setup)'). There is zero waste, and every word 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?

Given the complexity (a connection tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral outcomes. For a tool that likely establishes a critical session for other operations, more context is needed to guide effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (deviceId, localKey, ip) with their types and descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as where to find these credentials or format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Connect') and resource ('your RoboVac'), and specifies it's for 'manual setup' using 'device credentials'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_auto_initialize' or 'robovac_connect_discovered', which likely offer alternative connection methods.

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 context ('manual setup') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'robovac_auto_initialize' or 'robovac_connect_discovered'. It provides some guidance by mentioning it's for manual connection, but lacks clear exclusions or named 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 implies a connection action but lacks details on what 'connect' entails—e.g., whether it establishes a persistent session, requires authentication, has side effects like network changes, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic parameter requirements.

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

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

The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and prerequisites without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes, but overall it's concise and to the point.

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 complexity of a connection tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after connection (e.g., returns a session token, updates device state), potential errors, or how it integrates with other tools like 'robovac_find_robot'. For a tool that likely involves network operations and authentication, more context is needed to ensure safe and effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters (ip, deviceId, localKey) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value by restating that these are required ('requires device ID and local key') but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage 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 clearly states the action ('Connect to a discovered RoboVac device') and specifies the target resource ('by IP'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_connect' or 'robovac_auto_initialize', which might have overlapping or related functionality, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific 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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning 'requires device ID and local key', which hints at prerequisites but doesn't clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'robovac_connect' or 'robovac_auto_initialize'. There's no explicit context on when this is appropriate, such as after device discovery, nor any exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Make the robovac beep' implies an action that produces sound, it doesn't describe what happens (e.g., how long it beeps, whether it interrupts current operations, if it requires specific robot states, or what happens on failure). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that triggers a physical 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Make the robovac beep' and 'to help locate it') contributes essential information, making it appropriately 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?

For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks important context. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what the beep sounds like, duration, or error conditions, which would be valuable for an agent invoking this physical action 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%, with the single parameter 'enable' clearly documented in the schema as controlling whether to enable or disable find robot mode. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 action ('Make the robovac beep') and purpose ('to help locate it'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_get_status' or 'robovac_get_all_statuses' which might also help locate the robot through status information rather than audible beeping.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the robot needs to be connected or powered on), nor does it suggest when other tools like status-checking siblings might be more appropriate for location purposes.

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. It mentions 'formatted display' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires connectivity, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON, text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the 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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted 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 the tool's complexity (simple read operation) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'formatted' means, the return type, or any behavioral context, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to use it effectively.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for no parameters, as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.

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 'Get' and resource 'formatted display of all robovac status information', making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like robovac_get_status (singular) and robovac_get_all_statuses (unformatted), though not explicitly named. However, it could be more specific about what 'formatted' entails versus raw data.

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 robovac_get_all_statuses or other status-related siblings. The description implies a formatted output but doesn't specify contexts where this is preferred, such as for human-readable displays versus programmatic processing.

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 states the tool retrieves information, implying it's a read operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on failure. The phrase 'at once' hints at batch retrieval but lacks detail on response format or potential performance impacts.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'all status information' includes, how it's structured, or potential errors. For a tool that aggregates data from multiple sibling tools, more context on the return format and usage scenarios is needed.

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, with the 'force' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when to use 'force' or its implications. With high schema coverage, 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 all status information') and resource ('from the robovac'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'robovac_get_status' by specifying 'all status information at once', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other status-related tools like 'robovac_get_battery' or 'robovac_get_work_status'.

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 doesn't mention when it's preferable over individual status tools (e.g., 'robovac_get_battery') or the more general 'robovac_get_status', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing the robovac to be connected first.

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 burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose potential side effects, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates what the tool does without any structural 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 read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't explain what format the battery level returns (e.g., percentage, voltage) or potential error responses, leaving some contextual 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('battery level of the robovac'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'robovac_get_status' or 'robovac_get_all_statuses' by focusing exclusively on battery information.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the robovac must be connected first), nor does it clarify if battery level is included in other status tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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 mentions retrieving 'current' data but doesn't clarify if this is cached or real-time, what happens if the robovac is offline, or any error conditions. The parameter 'force' hints at caching behavior, but this isn't explained in the description itself.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential 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 read operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., numeric value, units) and doesn't address potential failures or dependencies, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations.

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, with the 'force' parameter documented as 'Force refresh of cached data'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('current cleaning speed of the robovac'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_get_all_statuses' or 'robovac_get_status', which might also provide speed information among other data.

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 'robovac_get_all_statuses' or 'robovac_get_status'. The description only states what it does without context about its role relative to other tools in the server.

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 states the tool retrieves error codes but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires prior connection/initialization, potential rate limits, or what happens if no error exists. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose, making it easy for an AI agent to parse and understand quickly.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves operational data. It doesn't explain the format or meaning of the error code (e.g., numeric codes, strings, or structured data), nor does it cover prerequisites like needing the robovac to be connected. This leaves critical context gaps for effective tool 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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'force' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of an error code, which aligns with the tool's name. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current error code of the robovac'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_get_status' or 'robovac_format_status', which might also provide error-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like 'robovac_get_status' that might include error codes, there's no indication of whether this tool is preferred for error-specific queries or if it should be used in specific contexts (e.g., troubleshooting). This lack of comparative guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, if it's safe to call frequently, what happens if the robovac is offline, or any error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, contributing to understanding the tool's function.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide a complete picture for an AI agent to use it effectively in all scenarios.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents the 'force' parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining when to use 'force' or its implications. With high schema coverage, 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 tool's purpose: 'Get the current play/pause state of the robovac'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('play/pause state'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'robovac_get_status' or 'robovac_get_work_status', which might provide overlapping or related information.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as needing the robovac to be connected or initialized first, nor does it compare it to sibling tools like 'robovac_get_status' that might include play/pause state as part of a broader status check.

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. It states the action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires connectivity, what status information is included (e.g., battery, mode), or potential errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 complexity of a status-checking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status' entails (e.g., operational state, battery level, errors) or the return format, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's output and behavior.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the parameter-free 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('current status of the robovac'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_get_all_statuses' or 'robovac_format_status', which would require more specificity about scope or output format.

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. With multiple status-related siblings (e.g., 'robovac_get_all_statuses', 'robovac_get_battery', 'robovac_get_work_status'), the description offers no context on selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool in this context. It doesn't explain what 'work mode' entails (e.g., cleaning modes, status types), how the data is returned, or potential errors, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'force' clearly documented as 'Force refresh of cached data' with a default value. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current work mode of the robovac'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'robovac_get_status' or 'robovac_get_work_status', which might retrieve overlapping or related information.

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. With sibling tools like 'robovac_get_status' and 'robovac_get_work_status' available, there's no indication of what distinguishes this tool, such as whether it returns a subset of data or a specific mode type, leaving the agent to guess based on naming 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires connectivity, has rate limits, or returns cached vs. live data. The parameter 'force' hints at caching behavior, but this isn't explained in the description.

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

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'work status' includes (e.g., cleaning mode, progress, errors) or the return format, leaving gaps for a tool that likely provides operational state information. The context signals indicate a simple parameter structure, but the description fails to compensate for missing behavioral and output details.

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, with the single parameter 'force' documented as 'Force refresh of cached data'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 resource ('current work status of the robovac'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_get_status' or 'robovac_get_all_statuses', which appear to be related status-checking tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'robovac_get_status' or 'robovac_get_all_statuses'. It lacks context about what 'work status' specifically entails compared to general 'status' or other status-related tools, leaving the agent with no usage criteria.

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 states the action ('Pause') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires the robovac to be connected or in a specific state, what happens if invoked incorrectly (e.g., error handling), or any side effects (e.g., might stop movement immediately). This leaves gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to scan and understand immediately. Every word earns its place by conveying essential 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 the complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., state requirements, error responses) and doesn't explain what the tool returns or any side effects. This makes it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, which is appropriate, but it also doesn't introduce any confusion. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the schema fully handles the case.

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 ('Pause') and target ('robovac cleaning'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'robovac_play' and 'robovac_stop_cleaning' by specifying the pause action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'robovac_get_play_pause' which might be a status check, so it's not fully specific about being a command versus a query.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requires the robovac to be actively cleaning), exclusions (e.g., not applicable when paused or stopped), or direct alternatives like 'robovac_play' to resume. The agent must infer usage from context 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, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't cover permissions, side effects, response format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely controls hardware.

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, efficient phrase ('Start/resume robovac cleaning') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and perfectly sized for 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., connection state), behavioral outcomes, or error scenarios, which are crucial for safe invocation in a sibling-rich environment.

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

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

There are 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but this is appropriate given the tool's simplicity, warranting a baseline score above minimum viable.

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 ('Start/resume') and resource ('robovac cleaning'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'robovac_start_cleaning' or 'robovac_pause', which prevents a perfect score.

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 'robovac_start_cleaning' or 'robovac_pause'. The description implies usage for starting or resuming cleaning, but lacks explicit context 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 provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this command requires the robovac to be powered on, connected, or in a certain mode; what happens if the dock is unreachable; whether cleaning stops automatically; or any error conditions. For a command tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It states what the tool does but omits important context like prerequisites, side effects, or error handling. For a command that likely interacts with hardware, more behavioral detail would improve 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't discuss nonexistent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't add param info but doesn't need to.

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 specific action ('Send back') and target resource ('robovac to its charging dock'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'robovac_start_cleaning' or 'robovac_pause' by focusing on navigation to the charging dock rather than cleaning operations or status queries.

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 the robovac needs to return to charge, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'robovac_stop_cleaning' or 'robovac_pause', nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the robovac must be connected or in a certain state). Usage is contextually implied but not explicitly defined.

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 states 'Set' implying a mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are immediate or reversible, potential side effects (e.g., battery drain at higher speeds), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the speed (e.g., confirmation, error responses), behavioral constraints, or how it interacts with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies device state, more context is needed.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage and fully documents the 'speed' parameter with enum values. The description only restates that it sets 'suction speed,' which is already implied by the tool name and schema. No additional context on parameter meaning or usage is provided.

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 ('Set') and the target resource ('suction speed of the robovac'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_get_clean_speed' or 'robovac_set_work_mode', which would require mentioning it's specifically for adjusting cleaning power versus other settings.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the robovac must be connected or in a certain state), exclusions (e.g., not usable while cleaning), or comparisons to siblings like 'robovac_set_work_mode' for broader mode changes.

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 states this is a 'Set' operation, implying a mutation, but doesn't describe any behavioral traits: it doesn't mention whether this requires the robovac to be online, if changes are immediate or queued, what happens if the mode is invalid, or if there are side effects (e.g., does setting 'AUTO' start cleaning?). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Set the cleaning mode'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects: behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, state requirements), relationship to sibling tools, or what the tool returns (if anything). For a tool that changes device state, this lack of information could lead to incorrect usage by an agent.

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, with a clear enum for the 'mode' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (it doesn't explain what each mode means, e.g., 'SMALL_ROOM' vs. 'SPOT'). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 ('Set') and the target ('cleaning mode of the robovac'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'robovac_get_work_mode' (read vs. write) and 'robovac_start_cleaning' (mode setting vs. action initiation). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this is a write operation, which slightly reduces clarity compared to a perfect score.

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. For example, it doesn't explain how this relates to 'robovac_start_cleaning' (does setting a mode automatically start cleaning?) or 'robovac_get_work_mode' (should you check current mode first?). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the robovac must be connected or in a specific state.

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 burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: whether this requires the robovac to be in a specific state (e.g., charged, not already cleaning), what happens if invoked while cleaning is ongoing, if it's idempotent, or what the expected outcome is. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Start the robovac cleaning cycle'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, and there's no unnecessary elaboration 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like state requirements, idempotency, or error conditions. For a tool that likely changes device state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't discuss non-existent parameters. It focuses on the action, which is sufficient given the empty input 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 action ('Start') and target resource ('robovac cleaning cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'robovac_pause', 'robovac_stop_cleaning', and 'robovac_return_home' by specifying initiation of cleaning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'robovac_play' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the robovac must be connected or initialized first), nor does it clarify relationships with siblings like 'robovac_play' or 'robovac_set_work_mode'. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from tool names 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 carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states what the tool does but doesn't disclose effects like whether the robovac remains in place, returns to dock, or retains cleaning progress. For a control tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient 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 control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain what happens after stopping (e.g., does the robovac pause, return home, or shut down?) or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, earning a high baseline score for not introducing unnecessary complexity.

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 ('Stop') and target ('robovac cleaning cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'robovac_pause' or 'robovac_return_home', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'robovac_pause' or 'robovac_return_home'. It lacks context about whether this stops cleaning permanently versus temporarily, or if it should be used during active cleaning only.

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