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 conveys that this is a read-only reference operation with no side effects and hints at the response content (tools, inputs, example prompts). It does not disclose whether authentication is required or the exact output format, but the non-mutating nature is reasonably clear.

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

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

A single front-loaded sentence of 17 words with zero waste. 'Get a quick reference' opens with the action, and every phrase ('all available', 'their inputs', 'example prompts') adds distinct value.

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 0-parameter help tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and what the agent will receive. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on whether login is a prerequisite, which could matter given the authentication-focused siblings.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and there is nothing about parameters that needs further explanation.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Get a quick reference') with a clear resource (all BetaDrop MCP tools) and specifies what it returns (inputs and example prompts). It distinguishes itself from all functional siblings like betadrop_publish or betadrop_token_create by being the meta-level orientation 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 usage context is implied: an agent would call this when it needs an overview of available tools, inputs, or example prompts. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of whether it works without authentication despite the existence of betadrop_login.

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 implies a read-only operation by saying 'List', and 'recent' suggests temporal ordering, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements, sorting details, or whether all statuses are included by default.

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 main action and then states the optional filters. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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

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

For a simple listing tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not mention return format, default sort order, or the relationship to betadrop_list_expired_builds, leaving some ambiguity for an agent selecting between siblings.

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

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

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and enums, so the description adds little semantic value. The mention of filtering by platform and status matches the schema but does not go beyond it; baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 names a specific verb and resource: list builds on BetaDrop, with optional filtering by platform and status. It is clear about what the tool does and its scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling betadrop_list_expired_builds, which overlaps because 'expired' is a status filter value.

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

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as betadrop_list_expired_builds. The phrase 'optionally filtered by platform and status' hints at usage scenarios but does not state exclusions or point to a more specialized sibling.

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 does say 'Shows expiry reason and details,' which reveals part of the output behavior. However, it omits any mention of authentication needs, read-only guarantees, or a more precise return shape, leaving the agent with some uncertainty for a tool that has no output schema.

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 with three short sentences, each adding information: the action, the shortcut relationship, and the output details. The only minor issue is that the first sentence nearly restates the tool name, making it somewhat redundant, but overall it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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

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

Given that there is no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning 'expiry reason and details,' but it does not define the response structure beyond vague 'details.' The schema covers pagination and platform filtering, and the tool is a simple list, so the description is adequate but not rich enough to be fully complete without an output schema.

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

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

The input schema already documents all three parameters (page, perPage, platform) with complete descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List all expired builds on BetaDrop.' It also clarifies the relationship to the general listing tool by calling it a 'shortcut for listing builds with status 'expired'', which distinguishes it from siblings like betadrop_list_builds. The mention of 'Shows expiry reason and details' provides additional clarity about the output focus.

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

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

The description gives clear context: this is a shortcut for a specific status filter, so an agent can infer it should be used when expired builds are needed. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative (betadrop_list_builds) or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of full exclusion guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses two behavioral facts: it validates the token against the server (network call) and persists credentials to shared CLI config (side effect). It doesn't discuss overwriting existing credentials, but it is sufficient for safety awareness.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose; no filler or repetition of schema/field names.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, it covers what the tool does, validation, and persistence. With no output schema, it doesn't state return/success behavior, but this is a minor gap for a login operation.

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

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters, including token example and apiUrl as optional override. The description adds only that the token is validated, not deeper syntax or behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific action ('Configure API authentication') and resource ('BetaDrop token'), then adds validation and credential persistence, which separates it from sibling token-management or status tools.

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

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

The context is clear: call this when setting up/updating CLI authentication with a BetaDrop token. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but its purpose and sibling set make selection unmissable.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states that the active token is revoked on the server and local credentials are cleared, which are the key behavioral consequences. It does not cover idempotency or error cases, but the main destructive actions are transparent.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary server-side action and then states the local cleanup, 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?

For a parameterless logout tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the operation and its side effects. It omits edge-case behavior such as calling logout when no active token exists, but this is minor for such a simple 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the empty schema fully defines the input surface.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Revoke') and identifies both the server-side token and local credentials, so the action is clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like betadrop_token_delete, but the focus on the 'active token' and local state provides some differentiation.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus betadrop_login or betadrop_token_delete, and no mention of prerequisites or expected conditions. The intended use is inferable from the name and effects, but the description does not state it directly.

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 the high-level 'publish' action without describing side effects, authentication needs, whether existing builds are replaced, or what the response looks like. This is similar to the 'update_drive' calibration example.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and contains no filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core operation.

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

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

Given 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the workflow around publishing, including authentication, upload progress, return values, or how this step fits with sibling tools like betadrop_upload_status. The schema handles parameters but not operational context.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: every parameter, including the expiryType enum and conditional expiry limit fields, already has a descriptive schema entry. The tool description adds nothing beyond restating the .ipa/.apk types that filePath already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('publish') with a clear resource ('an iOS (.ipa) or Android (.apk) build') and target platform ('to BetaDrop'). This makes the tool's action distinct from siblings like list_builds, token management, or upload_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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like being logged in, and no indication of how this relates to betadrop_upload_status or betadrop_list_builds. Intended usage is only implied by the name and basic sentence.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively warns that 'the plaintext token is shown exactly once — copy it immediately,' which is a critical side-effect that affects how the agent must handle the output. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or other potential consequences of creation, though the one-time display is the most important behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical warning about the token being shown once immediately follows. Every word earns its place, with no filler.

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

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

Given the low complexity (3 simple params, 100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential return behavior by warning that the plaintext token appears exactly once. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't specify the exact response shape or mention that authentication is required, but the most important operational detail is present.

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

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (name, abilities, expiresInDays). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new CLI token.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like betadrop_token_list and betadrop_token_delete, which involve different operations on tokens.

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

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that betadrop_token_list is for viewing existing tokens or that betadrop_token_delete is for removing them, nor does it indicate prerequisites such as being logged in. The description only states the action, leaving usage context unaddressed.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Revoke' implies the token is invalidated, but the description does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the action is irreversible, whether it takes effect immediately, or what happens on repeated calls. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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

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

The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and object with zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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

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

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits behavioral context such as auth requirements, post-conditions, and what the response looks like. The schema fills parameter gaps but not operational context, leaving the tool only partially complete.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema's parameter description already explains where the token ID comes from. The description's phrase 'by its ID' merely restates the schema and adds no new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the necessary work.

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 'Revoke a CLI token by its ID' uses a specific verb ('revoke') and a clear resource ('CLI token'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like betadrop_token_list and betadrop_token_create, even without naming 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?

The description itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the parameter description '(from betadrop_token_list)' implies a prerequisite workflow: first list tokens to obtain the ID. This is indirect usage guidance rather than an open exclusion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that only 'active' tokens are listed and scopes results to the 'current account', which are meaningful behavioral filters. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, output format, or any potential side effects beyond the implicit read-only nature of 'List'.

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

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It contains no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation, 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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, no annotations. The description tells the agent what will happen - list active CLI tokens for the current account - which is sufficient to invoke the tool. It could mention that an authenticated session is required, but 'current account' strongly implies this, and the operation is a straightforward read.

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 is empty, and the schema description coverage is 100% by definition. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. This matches the zero-parameter baseline of 4.

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

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

The description states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('active CLI tokens'), and a scope ('current account'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like betadrop_token_create and betadrop_token_delete, which mutate tokens, and from betadrop_whoami, which returns account identity.

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

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

The description provides clear context: call this tool whenever you need to enumerate active CLI tokens for the current account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tool names make the differentiation intuitive. It just lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and mentioning the install link hints at the return value, but it does not disclose what happens if called without a prior running upload, whether it blocks until completion, or whether it returns a transient 'still running' status versus a final result. These gaps leave some ambiguity.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output, the second states the sole invocation condition. Information is front-loaded 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?

For a parameterless status-polling tool, the description covers the core purpose and the key usage condition. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain return structure, error behavior, or what happens if there is no upload in progress. These are minor gaps for such a simple tool, but they keep it from being fully complete.

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

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required. Per calibration, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('result of the most recent betadrop_publish upload') and a key output ('install link'). It naturally distinguishes itself from siblings like betadrop_publish (the triggering action) and betadrop_list_builds (listing historical builds).

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?

It provides an explicit condition: 'Call this only when betadrop_publish reported the upload was still running.' This is a precise gate that tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and indirectly implies not to call it otherwise. No alternative tool is named, but the condition is sufficient given the sibling 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only informational operation with no apparent side effects, but it does not state behavior when unauthenticated or describe the exact response semantics.

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

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

The description is a single focused sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the core purpose and keeps the resource scope clear.

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 zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description adequately states what it does and what information it exposes. Adding notes about unauthenticated behavior or exact server detail fields would improve completeness but is not a major gap.

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

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

The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline score of 4 applies here.

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

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

The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource: authentication status, active account, and BetaDrop server details. This clearly distinguishes it from login/logout, publishing, and token-management siblings, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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

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

The intended context is implied: use this when you need to verify the current authentication state or see account/server details. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, which is acceptable for a simple status tool but not fully explicit.

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