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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool connects remotely and uses environment variables, but doesn't mention behavioral traits like authentication needs, potential latency, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., image format). For a remote operation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and connection method. There's no wasted text, and it efficiently communicates key information, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating prerequisites).

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 (remote operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and connection method but misses details like output format, error cases, or dependencies. For a tool with no structured support, it's adequate but has clear gaps.

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

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

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds context about environment variables for connection details, which compensates for the lack of parameters. This provides useful semantic information beyond the schema, earning a high 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 tool's purpose: 'Connect to a remote MacOs machine and get a screenshot of the remote desktop.' It specifies the verb ('get a screenshot') and resource ('remote desktop'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools (e.g., mouse actions, application opening). This makes it clear but not fully differentiated.

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

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

The description provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions using environment variables for connection details, which implies prerequisites. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other remote tools for different actions) or any exclusions. This lack of explicit context guidance limits its helpfulness.

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. It mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' and 'environment variables for connection details', which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical aspects like required permissions, network dependencies, error handling, or what happens if the remote machine is unavailable. For a remote control tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes key behavioral details (coordinate scaling, environment variables) without unnecessary elaboration. 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?

For a remote control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on error conditions, return values, security implications, or performance characteristics, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand tool behavior fully.

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%, providing full parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'automatic coordinate scaling', which relates to source_width and source_height parameters, but doesn't explain scaling mechanics or environmental variable usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('perform a mouse click') and target ('on a remote MacOS machine'), distinguishing it from siblings like mouse_move or mouse_drag_n_drop by specifying click behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from mouse_double_click, which is a similar click action.

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

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

The description mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' and 'environment variables for connection details', which provides some context, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mouse_double_click or mouse_drag_n_drop, nor any prerequisites 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. It mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' and 'Uses environment variables for connection details', which are useful behavioral disclosures. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, error conditions, network dependencies, or what happens if the remote machine is unavailable - significant gaps for a remote control 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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each add value: first stating the core action with key features, second explaining implementation details. No redundant information, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical 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 remote control tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic context but lacks completeness. It covers the what and how of coordinate scaling but misses important operational context like error handling, performance characteristics, or what the tool returns upon execution.

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%, providing complete parameter documentation. The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose of coordinate scaling and environment variable usage, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This 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 specific action ('Perform a mouse double-click'), target resource ('on a remote MacOs machine'), and key behavior ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'remote_macos_mouse_click' by specifying the double-click action.

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

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

The description implies usage context through 'remote MacOs machine' and 'automatic coordinate scaling', but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remote_macos_mouse_click' or 'remote_macos_mouse_drag_n_drop'. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if coordinates are out of bounds, whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, or error conditions. The mention of 'automatic coordinate scaling' is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

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

Single sentence efficiently conveys core functionality without redundancy. Every word earns its place by specifying the operation, target environment, and key technical feature.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after the drag operation, what success/failure looks like, or important behavioral constraints. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'automatic coordinate scaling' which relates to source_width/source_height parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about how scaling works or parameter interactions.

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 ('Perform a mouse drag operation'), target resource ('on a remote MacOs machine'), and key capability ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). It distinguishes from siblings like mouse_click and mouse_move by specifying drag-and-drop functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing remote connection established), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like mouse_move or when drag-and-drop is appropriate versus separate click operations.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' and 'environment variables for connection details', which add some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what happens if the remote machine is unavailable. For a remote control tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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

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

Two concise sentences front-load the core functionality and key details (coordinate scaling, environment variables). No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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

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

For a remote control tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like how coordinates are mapped or what 'automatic scaling' entails in practice.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds context about 'automatic coordinate scaling', which relates to the source_width and source_height parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. 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 ('Move the mouse cursor') and target ('on a remote MacOs machine'), with additional context about coordinate scaling. It distinguishes from siblings like 'mouse_click' or 'mouse_drag_n_drop' by focusing on cursor positioning, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mouse_drag_n_drop' for dragging or 'mouse_click' for clicking after moving. It mentions environment variables for connection, but doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' and 'environment variables for connection details', which adds some context about how the tool works. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the remote machine is unavailable—significant gaps for a remote control 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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every element earns its place: the action (mouse scroll), target (remote MacOS machine), key feature (automatic coordinate scaling), and implementation detail (environment variables). There's no wasted verbiage 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 moderate complexity (remote control with coordinate scaling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the what and how at a high level but lacks details about behavioral expectations, error handling, or return values. For a tool that performs remote actions, more context about reliability and failure modes would be beneficial.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'automatic coordinate scaling' which relates to source_width/source_height parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage nuances. This meets the baseline 3 when 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 clearly states the specific action ('perform a mouse scroll'), target resource ('on a remote MacOS machine'), and key functionality ('with automatic coordinate scaling'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mouse_click, mouse_move, and mouse_drag_n_drop by specifying the scroll action rather than click, move, or drag 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 context through 'remote MacOS machine' and 'environment variables for connection details', suggesting this tool is for remote control scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like mouse_move or other mouse actions, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites beyond the implied remote connection setup.

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. It mentions the action ('Opens/activates') and return value ('PID for further interactions'), but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if the app isn't found), permissions required, or whether it brings the app to foreground. 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 front-loads the core action and outcome with zero wasted words. Every part ('Opens/activates', 'returns its PID', 'for further interactions') adds value, making it appropriately concise.

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

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

Given the complexity of a mutation tool (opening/activating apps) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error cases, side effects, or the format of the PID return, which are critical for safe and effective use in a remote macOS context.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required parameter 'identifier' with its types. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format details, 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 ('Opens/activates an application') and the resource ('an application'), with a specific outcome ('returns its PID for further interactions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remote_macos_send_keys' which might also interact with applications, leaving room for minor ambiguity.

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., needing the application installed), exclusions (e.g., not suitable for system apps), or how it relates to siblings like 'remote_macos_send_keys' for keyboard input after opening.

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 using environment variables for connection details, which adds some context about authentication/configuration needs. However, it lacks critical behavioral information such as error handling, latency considerations, whether it's read-only or destructive, or any rate limits—essential for a remote control 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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly convey the core functionality and a key implementation detail. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose. There is 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 complexity of a remote control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits like whether it's safe or destructive. The environment variable mention is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding, especially compared to richer sibling tools.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (text, special_key, key_combination). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid inputs or interactions between parameters. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('send keyboard input') and resource ('to a remote MacOs machine'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mouse operations or screen capture by focusing on keyboard input. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential keyboard-related siblings that might exist elsewhere.

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 mentions environment variables for connection details, which hints at prerequisites, but offers no explicit usage context, exclusion criteria, or comparison with sibling tools like remote_macos_open_application that might involve keyboard input indirectly.

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