Code MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation2/5
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, causing ambiguity. For example, 'git_diff' and 'enhanced_git_diff' both show git differences, 'preview_changes' and 'preview_changes_enhanced' both preview changes, and 'get_current_session' and 'get_session_info' appear to retrieve the same information. Tools like 'run_command', 'secure_run_command', and 'secure_run_command_sequence' also have unclear boundaries, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right one without trial and error.
Naming Consistency4/5Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or verb_adjective_noun pattern (e.g., 'create_directory', 'analyze_code', 'docker_build'), with clear and descriptive names. However, there are minor deviations, such as 'npm_command' and 'pip_install' using different naming styles, and some redundancy in names like 'git_diff' vs. 'enhanced_git_diff', but overall the naming is readable and predictable.
Tool Count2/5With 73 tools, the count is excessive for a code-focused server, leading to bloat and potential confusion. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple Docker tools, redundant git and preview tools) without losing functionality. This large number suggests poor scoping and makes the toolset overwhelming for agents to navigate effectively.
Completeness5/5The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for code development, including file operations, git management, Docker containerization, dependency installation, and session tracking. It supports full CRUD/lifecycle operations across these domains, with no obvious gaps. Agents can perform end-to-end workflows from project creation to deployment and cleanup.
Average 2.9/5 across 73 of 73 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
This repository is archived. Archived repositories automatically receive an F maintenance tier.
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
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 but offers none. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but there's no information about permissions required, side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens when networks are modified. For a tool with multiple action types (including destructive ones like 'remove'), this is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded in the sense that there's nothing to structure, but it fails to convey necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters including destructive actions), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens during different actions, or provide any context about Docker network management. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively based solely on this description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds zero additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage Docker networks' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'docker_networks'. While it indicates the domain (Docker networks), it doesn't specify what management actions are available or what resources are involved. It provides no differentiation from sibling Docker tools like docker_containers or docker_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over other Docker tools, or what specific network management scenarios it addresses. The agent must infer everything from the parameter schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Manage' is vague and doesn't specify whether operations are read-only, destructive, or have side effects. It fails to describe authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens during operations like 'remove' or 'prune'. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, with zero wasted text. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the tool's domain, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word earns its place by establishing the scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, multiple actions including destructive ones like 'remove' and 'prune'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate a multi-action tool safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'action' with enum values, 'volume' as name). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'force' applies to specific actions or what 'filter' syntax to use. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage Docker volumes' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'docker_volumes'. While it indicates the domain (Docker volumes), it lacks a specific verb or resource scope that would clarify what management entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling Docker tools like docker_containers or docker_images beyond the 'volumes' focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like docker_containers or docker_system. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but offers minimal information. 'Operations and information' implies both read and write capabilities, but doesn't specify which actions are destructive (like 'prune') versus informational (like 'info', 'version'). No context about permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what happens during execution is provided. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's appropriately sized for what it attempts to communicate, though it's under-specified rather than truly concise. The structure is simple and front-loaded, though it lacks the detail needed for effective tool selection.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'system operations' encompasses, what information is returned, or how this tool differs from other Docker tools. The description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively, especially given the rich ecosystem of sibling Docker tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema properties. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how 'all', 'volumes', and 'force' interact with different 'action' values). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Docker system operations and information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'docker_system'. It provides a vague category ('operations and information') but lacks a specific verb-resource combination that clarifies what this tool actually does. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling Docker tools like docker_containers or docker_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple Docker-related sibling tools (docker_build, docker_containers, docker_images, docker_networks, docker_volumes, docker_compose, docker_run, docker_cleanup), but the description offers no context about which system-level operations belong here versus in other tools. No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but provides minimal information. It mentions three actions but doesn't describe what 'list' returns (branch names, current branch marker, remote tracking info), whether 'create' validates branch existence, what happens when switching branches with uncommitted changes, or any error conditions. For a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, which is efficient for conveying basic scope. However, it's arguably too terse for a tool with three distinct actions and mutation capabilities. While front-loaded, it lacks the structure to guide proper usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three distinct actions (including mutations like create and switch), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, behavioral differences between actions, or how it interacts with the Git repository state. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify what values 'action' accepts, what format 'name' should use, or what 'cwd' defaults to. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List, create, or switch branches' restates the tool name 'git_branch' in slightly expanded form, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what resource it operates on (Git repository branches) or distinguish it from sibling Git tools like git_status or git_log that also provide branch-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (like needing a Git repository), when to prefer git_status for current branch info, or when git_checkout might be a better alternative for switching branches. The description offers only basic functional scope without contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 lists actions (list, pull, push, remove, etc.) but doesn't explain critical behaviors like permissions needed, side effects (e.g., 'remove' deletes images, 'prune' cleans up unused ones), rate limits, or error handling. For a multi-action tool with potential destructive operations, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose ('Manage Docker images') and provides examples. However, it could be more structured by clarifying the tool's scope or differentiating it from siblings, but it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions including destructive ones like 'remove'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly in various scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (action, image, tag, force, all, filter) with descriptions and an enum for action. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a range of actions, which the schema's enum already covers. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage Docker images (list, pull, push, remove, etc.)' states the general purpose (manage Docker images) and lists example actions, but it's vague about the specific scope and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like docker_containers or docker_system. It provides a high-level overview rather than a precise verb+resource definition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling Docker tools (e.g., docker_containers for container management, docker_build for building images), prerequisites, or specific contexts where this tool is appropriate versus others. It leaves the agent to infer usage from the action list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Show git diff' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify output format, error conditions, or any side effects. It lacks details about what gets displayed, whether it's interactive, or how it handles repository state.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at just two words, but arguably too brief. While there's zero wasted text, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It's front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a git diff tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or provide context about git diff behavior. With no annotations and minimal description, important contextual information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 three parameters (staged, file, cwd). The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or examples beyond what the schema provides. 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.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show git diff' states the basic action (show diff) and resource (git), but is vague about scope and format. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'enhanced_git_diff' or 'get_diff_stats', leaving ambiguity about what specific diff functionality this provides.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enhanced_git_diff', 'compare_commits', or 'preview_changes'. The description provides no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'enhanced' and 'multiple format options', but doesn't describe what 'enhanced' entails (e.g., better performance, additional features), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., specifying the type of changes) to improve clarity, but it avoids redundancy and waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'changes' refer to (e.g., git diffs, file modifications), what 'enhanced' means, or what the output looks like. For a tool with 5 parameters and sibling tools like 'preview_changes', 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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 5 parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Preview format', 'Number of context lines'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or typical values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool provides 'Enhanced change preview with multiple format options', which gives a vague purpose (previewing changes) but lacks specificity about what changes (e.g., git diffs, file changes) or how it differs from siblings like 'preview_changes' or 'enhanced_git_diff'. It mentions 'enhanced' and 'multiple format options' but doesn't clearly distinguish from similar tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'preview_changes', 'enhanced_git_diff', or 'git_diff'. The description implies it's for change previews but offers no context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'using appropriate test runner' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it runs tests in isolation, outputs results to console/files, handles errors, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., modifying files). For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness4/5Is 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 ('Run tests'), though it could be more structured (e.g., by mentioning key parameters). It earns a 4 for being concise but loses a point for not optimizing clarity in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover what the tool returns (test results, exit codes), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool that likely executes code and may have complex behavior, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (language, framework, path, pattern). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., language-framework compatibility), default behaviors, or examples. 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.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run tests using appropriate test runner' states the action (run tests) but is vague about scope and mechanism. It doesn't specify what kind of tests (unit, integration, etc.), what 'appropriate' means, or how it differs from sibling tools like run_command or run_python. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., test frameworks installed), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it compares to sibling tools like run_command for general execution or run_python for Python-specific tasks. The description offers no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Manage' implies mutation capabilities (e.g., starting/stopping services), but the description doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., container creation/deletion), error handling, or output format. It lacks critical details for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word serves a purpose, making it structurally sound.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., detach for background operation). For a multi-action tool with significant parameter interplay, more context is needed for completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., action enum values, file default). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, but the high coverage justifies the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage Docker Compose services' states a general purpose but is vague about what 'manage' entails. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_build or docker_run by specifying Compose services, but lacks the specificity of a clear verb+resource combination (e.g., 'execute Docker Compose commands to control multi-container applications').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 when to choose this over individual Docker tools (e.g., docker_run for single containers) or other sibling tools like generate_docker_compose. The description offers no context, 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.
- Behavior2/5
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 'search' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned (e.g., list of matches), or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a search 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Search for patterns in code') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core function without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for its purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, and it lacks context for usage among siblings. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to effectively invoke the tool in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'query' and 'regex' interact or providing examples of search patterns. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for patterns in code' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('search') and target ('patterns in code'), avoiding tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_and_replace' or 'analyze_code', which might have overlapping search capabilities, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'find_and_replace' (which likely modifies code) and 'analyze_code' (which might perform deeper analysis), there's no indication of this tool's specific context, such as for quick pattern matching without changes. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Start a development server' implies a long-running process creation, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, how the server is managed (e.g., background process, PID tracking), what happens if a server is already running, or error handling. Significant behavioral gaps exist for a process-starting tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that starts development servers (a potentially complex operation with process management implications), the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavior, no output schema describes what's returned (e.g., process ID, success status), and the description lacks crucial context about how the server runs and interacts with the system.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 4 parameters (command, port, name, cwd) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but minimal value addition.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Start a development server' clearly states the action (start) and target (development server), but it's vague about what type of development server and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'docker_run' which might also start servers. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'run_command', 'docker_run', or 'docker_compose'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 the action ('Add') but doesn't explain what 'allowed commands list' means, whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are persistent, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the impact of adding a command (e.g., security implications, persistence), what the allowed list is used for, or what the tool returns. For a tool that modifies project settings, more context is needed to understand its full scope and effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'command' documented as 'Command to add to allowed list'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('command to the project's allowed commands list'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'remove_allowed_command' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'get_allowed_commands' or 'remove_allowed_command'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether a project must be loaded or active, and offers no explicit when/when-not instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'analyze' but doesn't specify what the analysis entails (e.g., static vs. dynamic, output format, performance impact, or error handling). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of code analysis, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and how it differs from siblings, making it incomplete for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('path' and 'language'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Analyze code structure and dependencies' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('code structure and dependencies'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_file_differences' or 'search_code', which might also involve code analysis, so it's not fully distinctive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions on context, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings such as 'analyze_file_differences' or 'search_code', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'detailed statistics' but doesn't specify what kind of statistics, whether the analysis is read-only or modifies files, performance implications, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably performs complex file analysis.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the lack of annotations and output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that analyzes file differences with detailed statistics, the description is insufficient given the absence of annotations and output schema. It doesn't explain what 'detailed statistics' means, what format the output takes, or behavioral aspects like whether it handles binary files, encoding issues, or large files. The context signals indicate this is a non-trivial operation that needs more complete documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters as file paths. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as file format requirements or path validation rules. With complete 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as analyzing differences between two files with detailed statistics, which is a specific verb (analyze differences) applied to resources (two files). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'compare_files' or 'get_diff_stats', which appear to offer similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'compare_files' or 'get_diff_stats' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 the action but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this modifies files (implied by 'apply'), requires specific permissions, handles errors, or provides output format. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what 'apply' entails operationally (e.g., file modifications, error handling), return values, or prerequisites. The context signals indicate complexity that the description fails to adequately cover.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters like 'patchFile' format or interactions between 'dryRun' and 'backup'. Baseline score of 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Apply a patch file to the workspace' clearly states the action (apply) and target (patch file to workspace), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_patch' or 'preview_changes', but the verb 'apply' implies execution rather than creation or simulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 siblings like 'create_patch' (for generating patches), 'preview_changes' (for simulating changes), or 'auto_commit_changes' (for committing after patching), leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'automatically commit' and 'tracking', but doesn't explain what 'tracking' entails, whether it's a safe or destructive operation, permission requirements, or how it interacts with sessions. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or what 'tracking' means, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters like 'message', 'files', and 'amendSession'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining 'amendSession' context or file selection nuances, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Automatically commit') and target ('AI-made changes with tracking'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_commit' or 'end_coding_session' that might also handle commits, missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'git_commit' or 'end_coding_session'. The description implies it's for AI-made changes with tracking, but it doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'detailed analysis' but doesn't explain what that entails—such as whether it returns diff statistics, file changes, or commit metadata, or if it has side effects like modifying the repository. For a comparison 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('compare two commits') and adds a qualifier ('with detailed analysis'). However, it could be more structured by separating purpose from behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of comparing commits (which can involve diff outputs, statistics, or metadata), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify the return format, error conditions, or how 'detailed analysis' manifests, leaving the agent to guess. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured output information, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'filePattern' interacts with the comparison or what 'detailed analysis' includes. With 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: comparing two commits with detailed analysis. It specifies the verb 'compare' and the resource 'commits', making it distinct from sibling tools like 'compare_files' or 'git_diff' which focus on different comparison targets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'enhanced_git_diff' or 'get_diff_stats', which might offer similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 to choose 'compare_commits' over 'compare_files', 'git_diff', 'enhanced_git_diff', or 'get_diff_stats', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'show differences with multiple format options,' which hints at output behavior, but doesn't describe what the comparison returns (e.g., structured diff, summary), error conditions, performance implications, or side effects. For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words and directly communicates the tool's 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output format, error handling, or how parameters like 'contextLines' and 'wordDiff' affect the comparison. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks critical context for proper invocation and interpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'multiple format options,' which aligns with the 'format' enum parameter. However, it doesn't provide additional context like parameter interactions or default behaviors beyond what's in the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Compare two files and show differences with multiple format options.' It specifies the verb ('compare'), resource ('two files'), and key capability ('show differences with multiple format options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_file_differences' or 'enhanced_git_diff', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 sibling tools like 'analyze_file_differences' or 'git_diff', nor does it specify prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 the action ('create') but doesn't cover critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on conflicts (e.g., if the directory already exists), if it's idempotent, or the response format. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Create a new directory' is front-loaded and directly conveys the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, permissions), usage guidelines, and output details. While the schema covers the parameter, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'path' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this (e.g., path format, relative vs. absolute). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new directory' clearly states the action (create) and resource (directory), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_directory' (read) and 'delete_file' (remove). However, it doesn't specify the scope or context (e.g., filesystem, workspace), 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., permissions, existing parent directories), exclusions (e.g., what happens if the path exists), or related tools like 'create_project' for broader workspace setup. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 tool creates a patch file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or what format the patch uses (e.g., unified diff). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (creating patch files involves file system operations) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the patch contains, how differences are computed, or what happens on failure. For a tool with potential side effects and no structured safety hints, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify if 'source' and 'target' must be paths, or if 'outputFile' defaults to a specific location). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a patch file from differences between files or directories'. It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('patch file'), and transformation ('from differences'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_patch' or 'git_diff', which handle patch application or git-based diffing respectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to similar tools like 'git_diff' (for version-controlled diffs) or 'compare_files' (for direct comparison). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a project already exists at the path, what 'boilerplate' specifically means, or what the expected output looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information ('Create a new project') with the additional detail ('with boilerplate') efficiently appended. Every word earns its place with no wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation/mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral implications, error conditions, return values, or how it differs from related tools. The mention of 'boilerplate' hints at additional behavior but doesn't explain it sufficiently for an agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 three parameters (name, type, path) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what 'boilerplate' means in relation to the parameters, what project types are available, or provide examples of valid paths.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new project') and the resource ('project'), specifying it includes 'boilerplate' which adds useful context about what kind of project is created. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_directory' or 'smart_workspace_init', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that could be related (create_directory, smart_workspace_init, update_project_config), but no indication of when this specific project creation tool is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether deletions are permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, whether it works recursively for directories, or what error conditions might occur. This is inadequate for a destructive 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Delete', 'file or directory') earns its place in communicating the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive file system operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there's confirmation or undo capability, error handling, or security implications. The context demands more comprehensive guidance for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'path' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the path parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as path format requirements or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('a file or directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_allowed_command' or 'docker_cleanup' that might also perform deletion operations in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or comparison to similar tools like 'move_file' (which might be used instead for relocation) or 'docker_cleanup' (for Docker-specific deletions).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'automatically detect[s]' but doesn't explain how detection works (e.g., scanning processes, reading config files), what permissions are needed, potential side effects, or the format of returned data. This is inadequate for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of workspace paths, process IDs), error conditions, or behavioral details like detection methods. For a tool with three parameters and no structured output, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as default values or interactions between parameters. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Automatically detect open VS Code instances and their workspaces'. It specifies the verb ('detect') and resource ('VS Code instances and their workspaces'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'get_workspace', which might offer similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as 'list_workspaces' or 'auto_select_workspace', leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Build a Docker image' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description lacks details on permissions required, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., disk usage), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 and wastes no space, 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of building Docker images (a mutation operation with 8 parameters) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 8 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Build') and resource ('Docker image from a Dockerfile'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_dockerfile' or 'docker_run', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'docker_run' (for running images) and 'generate_dockerfile' (for creating Dockerfiles), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for 'docker_build'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but offers minimal information. 'Manage Docker containers' implies both read and write operations, but doesn't specify which actions are destructive (remove, stop), which require elevated privileges, what happens with force operations, or any rate limits. The description doesn't mention error conditions, output formats, or side effects. For a tool with potentially destructive actions and 8 parameters, this is inadequate behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes representative examples of actions. However, it could be more structured by explicitly grouping actions (read vs. write operations) or mentioning the primary use case first. The brevity is appropriate but borders on under-specification given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple potentially destructive actions, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address safety considerations, permission requirements, common use cases, or expected outputs. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter details without contextual guidance about which combinations make sense or what results to expect. Given the complexity and lack of supporting structured data, the description should provide more operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the high-level action list. While the description implies the tool handles multiple operations, it doesn't explain parameter dependencies (e.g., 'container' is required for most actions except 'list', 'command' only for 'exec', etc.). With complete 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Manage Docker containers' with specific verbs (list, start, stop, remove, etc.), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling Docker tools like docker_build, docker_images, docker_networks, and docker_volumes by focusing specifically on container operations rather than images, networks, or volumes. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from docker_run (which creates/launches containers) or docker_compose (which manages multi-container applications).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 to choose docker_containers over docker_run for starting containers, docker_compose for multi-container management, or docker_system for system-level operations. There are no prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusion criteria provided, leaving the agent to infer usage patterns from the action list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Run a Docker container' implies execution and potential side effects, but it doesn't mention safety considerations, permissions required, whether it's interactive or background by default, or how errors are handled. For a tool with 17 parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Run a Docker container') that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for its purpose, with zero wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (17 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool runs (e.g., container lifecycle, output format, error behavior), leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate a potentially destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'Docker image to run' for 'image'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run a Docker container' clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('Docker container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'docker_build' or 'docker_compose', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 multiple Docker-related siblings (e.g., docker_build, docker_compose, docker_containers), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 format options but doesn't describe what the tool actually returns (e.g., formatted text output), whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key differentiator (format options) without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error handling, or when to use it versus sibling tools. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'multiple format options' which aligns with the 'format' parameter's enum values, but adds little beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions comprehensively document all 9 parameters, so the description doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show git diff with multiple format options'. It specifies the verb ('Show'), resource ('git diff'), and key capability ('multiple format options'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff' or 'compare_commits', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'git_diff', 'compare_commits', 'compare_files', and 'get_diff_stats' available, there's no indication of when this enhanced version is preferable or what distinguishes it from basic diff tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 it mentions a 'preview option', it doesn't describe what happens during preview versus actual replacement, whether changes are destructive or reversible, or any permissions/rate limits. For a tool that modifies files, this lack of safety and operational context 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Find and replace text across multiple files') and includes a key feature ('with preview option'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, file modifications) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, changed files list), error conditions, or behavioral details like whether backups are created by default. For a mutation tool with rich parameters, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that parameters support 'multiple files' and a 'preview option' (which maps to the 'preview' parameter). 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find and replace text across multiple files with preview option'. It specifies the verb ('find and replace'), resource ('text across multiple files'), and a key feature ('preview option'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'preview_changes' or 'search_code', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 to choose it over sibling tools like 'search_code' (for searching without replacement) or 'preview_changes' (for previewing changes from other operations). There's also no mention of prerequisites or constraints, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 what the tool does but doesn't explain important behavioral aspects: where the generated file is saved, whether it overwrites existing files, what format the template follows, or what happens if generation fails. For a file generation 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward generation tool and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, where files are saved, what happens on failure, or how the generated template is structured. Given the complexity of Docker Compose configuration and the lack of structured documentation, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('generate') and resource ('Docker Compose file template'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_dockerfile' or 'docker_compose', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific generation tool versus other Docker-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'generate_dockerfile' or 'docker_compose'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or what makes this tool distinct from its siblings in the Docker toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 it 'generates' a template, implying a read-only creation operation, but doesn't specify if it writes to a file, returns content, requires permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('generate', 'Dockerfile template', 'specific language/framework') contributes directly to understanding, making it appropriately sized and zero-waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns generated content. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., string, file path), error conditions, or dependencies. For a 2-parameter tool with zero structured coverage, the description should do more to compensate, especially regarding behavioral aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'language/framework' which aligns with parameter names but doesn't provide additional context like default behaviors or interaction between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('generate') and the resource ('Dockerfile template'), specifying it's for a 'specific language/framework'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'docker_build' or 'generate_docker_compose' by focusing on template creation rather than building or compose file generation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'generate_sample_config'), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 to choose this over 'docker_build' for actual building, 'generate_docker_compose' for orchestration, or other configuration tools. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 what the tool returns (statistics) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, requires git repository access, has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values. For a tool that likely interacts with git and provides statistical data, 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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 5 parameters with descriptions. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or examples. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get diff statistics (files changed, lines added/removed)'. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('diff statistics') with concrete metrics. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'git_diff', 'enhanced_git_diff', or 'compare_commits' which might provide similar functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 many sibling tools related to git operations and diffs (e.g., 'git_diff', 'compare_commits', 'analyze_file_differences'), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mentions retrieving history but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'history' entails (e.g., time range, sorting). This leaves gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it appropriately sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format of sessions/commits), behavioral aspects like data scope or limitations, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with potential complexity in historical data retrieval, more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'limit' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of 'all' sessions, which doesn't clarify how 'limit' interacts with this scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get history') and resource ('all coding sessions and their commits'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_session' or 'get_session_info', which might retrieve similar data but with different scopes or details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_current_session' or 'get_session_info'. The description implies it retrieves historical data, but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Stage files for commit' implies a mutation (adding files to staging area), but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires Git initialization, what happens on errors, if it's idempotent, or output format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., effects, error handling), usage guidelines, and output details. For a Git operation that modifies state, this leaves critical gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'files', 'all', and 'cwd'. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, such as file path formats or interactions between 'files' and 'all'. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stage files for commit' clearly states the verb ('stage') and resource ('files'), specifying the Git operation. It distinguishes from siblings like git_commit (commits staged files) and git_diff (shows changes), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from git_status (which shows staging status) or other file-related tools, keeping it at 4.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 a Git repository), when to use git_add versus git_commit or other siblings, or any exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Commit staged changes' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify what happens (e.g., creates a new commit in local repository, doesn't push to remote), potential side effects, or error conditions. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and immediately communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of Git operations and lack of structured safety information, this leaves the agent with inadequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('message' and 'cwd') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Commit staged changes' clearly states the action (commit) and target (staged changes), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'auto_commit_changes', but the purpose is unambiguous for Git operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'auto_commit_changes' or 'git_push'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing staged changes) or context for when this operation is appropriate versus other Git tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Pull changes from remote' implies a network operation that updates the local repository, but it doesn't describe what happens on failure (e.g., merge conflicts), whether it requires authentication, if it's destructive (it can overwrite local changes), or the output format. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Pull changes from remote')—a single phrase that front-loads the core action. There is zero wasted text, and every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a Git operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, prerequisites, or what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, merge output). For a tool that modifies local state and interacts with remotes, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions: 'remote' (remote name), 'branch' (branch name), and 'cwd' (repository path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default values (e.g., 'origin' for remote, current branch for branch) or usage examples. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Pull changes from remote' clearly states the verb ('Pull') and resource ('changes from remote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_push (which pushes changes) and git_status (which shows status). However, it doesn't specify that this is a Git operation (though the tool name implies it) or mention the local repository aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., having a Git repository initialized, being in a Git directory), when not to use it (e.g., during merge conflicts), or alternatives like git_fetch for fetching without merging. Usage is implied from the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Push commits to remote' implies a write/mutation operation that could affect remote state, but it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting remote changes, requiring force push in conflicts), authentication needs, or error conditions. This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Push commits to remote'), making it immediately scannable 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like what happens on success/failure, whether it's idempotent, or how it interacts with sibling tools (e.g., git_commit must precede it). The agent must rely on external Git knowledge, which is risky for reliable tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (remote, branch, cwd) documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as default values (e.g., 'origin' for remote, current branch) or usage examples. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Push commits to remote' clearly states the verb ('push') and resource ('commits to remote'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like git_commit or git_pull, which would require mentioning it's specifically for sending local commits to a remote repository.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 git_commit (for creating commits) or git_pull (for fetching from remote). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing commits ready to push) or context for usage, leaving the agent to infer this from general Git knowledge.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Get git repository status' implies a read-only operation, but it lacks details on what the status includes (e.g., staged/unstaged files, branch info), output format, error handling (e.g., if no git repo exists), or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get git repository status'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly 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.
Completeness2/5Given 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 effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the status output entails (e.g., structured data vs. raw text), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 'cwd' documented as 'Repository path'. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior if 'cwd' is omitted or path format examples. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get git repository status' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('git repository status'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'git_diff' or 'git_log', but the specific focus on 'status' is reasonably distinct within the git tool family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 a git repository), contrast with similar tools (e.g., 'git_diff' for changes or 'git_log' for history), or specify use cases (e.g., checking for uncommitted changes). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 installation but fails to specify what 'install' entails (e.g., whether it modifies system state, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has side effects like network calls). This is inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that likely performs system modifications (installing dependencies) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error handling, or dependencies on other tools, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Project path'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('install') and target ('all project dependencies'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'npm_command' or 'pip_install' that might handle similar dependency installation tasks, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'npm_command' or 'pip_install' listed among siblings. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 action ('List') but doesn't describe what 'with details' entails, potential errors (e.g., invalid paths), permissions required, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with the filesystem.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('List contents of a directory with details') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a filesystem tool. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, permissions), output structure, or usage context, which are critical for an agent to invoke it correctly in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('path' and 'recursive') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying directory listing, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('contents of a directory') with additional detail ('with details'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'list_processes', which also list resources but different types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, context, or exclusions, and there's no comparison to sibling tools like 'read_file' for file inspection or 'list_workspaces' for workspace listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Move or rename' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., if source doesn't exist), or returns any output. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior, error handling), usage context, and output information. Given the complexity of file operations, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter names and descriptions ('source path', 'destination path'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as path format examples or rename semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('move or rename') and resource ('a file or directory'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'rename_file' or 'copy_file' that might exist in other contexts, though none are present in the provided sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., file existence, permissions), exclusions (e.g., cannot move across different volumes), or related tools like 'copy_file' or 'delete_file' from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 runs npm commands but doesn't describe execution context (e.g., shell environment, error handling, output format), permissions required, or side effects (e.g., file system changes). For a command execution tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes relevant examples. Every part of the description earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of running system commands (with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address execution behavior, error cases, or output format, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand how 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.
Parameters3/5Does 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 three parameters (command, args, cwd) with basic descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies 'command' accepts npm-specific verbs like 'install' but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Run npm commands (install, test, build, etc)'. It specifies the verb ('Run') and resource ('npm commands'), and provides examples of common commands. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'install_dependencies', which could handle similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 npm-specific commands are preferred over general command runners like 'run_command', or how it relates to 'install_dependencies' for package installation. Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 the action ('Install') but doesn't mention critical details like whether this modifies system packages, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a package installation 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that installs packages (a potentially system-altering operation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks information about behavioral traits, error handling, and what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as package version syntax or virtual environment requirements. 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Install') and target ('Python packages using pip'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'install_dependencies', which appears to serve a similar purpose, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'install_dependencies' or 'npm_command'. There are no explicit instructions about prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 previews changes, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as what changes are previewed (e.g., staged vs. unstaged in Git), how the preview is presented, or any limitations (e.g., performance, scope). This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Preview all changes before committing'. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with zero wasted words. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool's name and sibling tools (e.g., 'preview_changes_enhanced'), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to clarify behavior or results, and the description lacks details on what changes are previewed, how they're displayed, or any constraints. This is inadequate for a tool in a context-rich environment like code or file management.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool, but doesn't provide extra value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Preview all changes before committing' states the tool's purpose with a verb ('preview') and resource ('changes'), but it's vague about what changes are being previewed (e.g., code, files, configurations). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'apply_patch' or 'auto_commit_changes' by focusing on previewing rather than applying, but the scope remains unclear compared to 'preview_changes_enhanced'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage before committing changes, but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or when to choose it over siblings like 'preview_changes_enhanced' or 'git_diff'. There's no mention of exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 basic action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention file size limits, encoding handling, error conditions (e.g., missing files), or return format. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the file contents are returned in (text, binary, encoding), any limitations, or error handling. Given the lack of structured data to compensate, the description should provide more context about the tool's behavior and output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'path' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured data, so it meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read') and resource ('contents of a file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_file_differences' or 'compare_files' which also involve file content examination, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 many file-related siblings (e.g., 'analyze_file_differences', 'compare_files', 'preview_changes'), there's no indication of when 'read_file' is appropriate versus when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 mutation (removal) but does not specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or effects on the system. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies project settings.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, effectively front-loading the core action and target. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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, and the tool's role in modifying project settings, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like side effects, success criteria, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'command' clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and the target ('a command from the project's allowed commands list'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'add_allowed_command' or other command-related tools, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'get_allowed_commands' or 'add_allowed_command', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing allowed command list. It only states what the tool does, not when to apply it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Execute a shell command' implies a potentially powerful and dangerous operation, but the description doesn't mention security implications, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to output. For a tool that can run arbitrary shell commands with no safety annotations, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward function and is perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that executes arbitrary shell commands with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like security risks, permission requirements, output handling, error behavior, or how this differs from secure variants. The combination of high-risk functionality and minimal description creates significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 three parameters (command, cwd, env) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as command syntax examples, cwd path requirements, or env format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute a shell command' clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('shell command'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'secure_run_command' or 'run_custom_tool', which appear to serve similar purposes with different security or execution contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'secure_run_command' and 'secure_run_command_sequence' available, there's no indication of when this basic execution tool is appropriate versus when more secure variants should be used, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 tool executes something, implying it may have side effects, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what permissions are needed, whether it's safe to run, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a tool that executes arbitrary custom code, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a tool that executes arbitrary custom code with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what custom tools are, how they're defined, what security implications exist, or what to expect from execution. For a potentially powerful and dangerous tool, this leaves too many questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what custom tools are available, how to discover them, or provide examples of typical arguments.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute') and resource ('a custom tool defined in project configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'run_command' or 'run_python' which also execute things, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for executing commands, scripts, or code, but no indication of when this custom tool execution is preferred over those other options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 the tool executes JavaScript with Node.js but fails to mention critical traits like security implications (e.g., sandboxing, permissions), performance aspects (e.g., timeouts, resource limits), or output handling (e.g., console logs, errors). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core functionality. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing arbitrary JavaScript code, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on safety, error handling, return values, or dependencies, making it incomplete for an agent to use the tool effectively in context with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions (code, script_path, args). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions (e.g., using code vs. script_path) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute') and resource ('JavaScript code or script with Node.js'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'run_python' or 'run_command' that also execute code, missing explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'run_python' for Python code or 'run_command' for shell commands. The description lacks context about appropriate use cases or exclusions, offering no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 but offers minimal insight. It states 'Execute' which implies code execution but doesn't cover safety aspects (e.g., sandboxing, permissions), output handling, error behavior, or resource limits. For a tool that runs arbitrary Python code, this lack of transparency 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Execute Python code or script'). There's zero wasted language, and it efficiently communicates the essence of the tool without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing arbitrary Python code, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like execution environment, security implications, return values, or error handling. For a tool with this potential impact, more guidance is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 four parameters (code, script_path, args, venv) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage but not enhancing understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('Python code or script'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'run_javascript' or 'run_command', but the purpose is unambiguous and specific enough for a general execution tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'run_javascript' for JavaScript execution, 'run_command' for shell commands, or 'secure_run_command' for safer execution. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 saves configuration to a file, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or has side effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and target file, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens on success (e.g., file creation/modification), error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies system state, more behavioral context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('config' as an object and 'path' as a string with a default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format details for 'config' or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Save') and target resource ('project-specific configuration to .vscode-mcp.toml'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_project_config' or 'generate_sample_config', which might have overlapping or related functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'update_project_config' or 'load_project_config'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must exist), exclusions, or typical scenarios for saving configuration, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'security restrictions (only allowed commands)' which hints at a whitelist mechanism, but doesn't explain what happens if a disallowed command is attempted, how to check allowed commands (sibling 'get_allowed_commands' exists), error behavior, or output format. For a potentially dangerous command execution tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 8 words in a single sentence. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and constraint. Every word earns its place with zero wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a command execution tool with security implications and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the security model, error handling, output format, or relationship to sibling tools like 'get_allowed_commands' and 'run_command'. The agent lacks critical 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.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute a command with security restrictions (only allowed commands)'. It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('command') with the key constraint of security restrictions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'run_command' which likely lacks these restrictions, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 the sibling 'run_command' (which appears to be the unrestricted version) or other command-execution tools like 'run_python' or 'npm_command'. There's no context about prerequisites, security requirements, or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'security restrictions' but doesn't specify what those restrictions are (allowed commands, permission levels, sandboxing, etc.). It doesn't describe error handling beyond the 'stopOnError' parameter, nor does it explain what 'auto-commit' means in this context. For a tool that executes potentially dangerous operations, this is a significant behavioral transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information about sequential execution and security restrictions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that executes potentially dangerous command sequences with security implications, the description is inadequate. No annotations exist to provide safety context, and there's no output schema to indicate what results to expect. The description doesn't explain what 'security restrictions' entail, what happens when commands fail, or how results are returned. Given the complexity and risk profile, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'security restrictions' which might relate to the 'commands' parameter, but doesn't elaborate. With complete 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.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: executing multiple commands in sequence with security restrictions. It specifies the verb ('execute') and resource ('commands'), but doesn't distinguish it from the sibling 'secure_run_command' tool, which appears to be a single-command version. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'run_command', 'secure_run_command', and various Docker/git tools, there's no indication of when this sequential execution with security restrictions is preferred over other execution methods. The description mentions 'security restrictions' but doesn't explain what those are or when they apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 action ('Set') but does not explain effects (e.g., whether this changes global state, requires permissions, or has side effects), making it inadequate 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence directly 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., state changes, error conditions) and does not compensate for the absence of structured data, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'Absolute path to workspace directory'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Set the active workspace directory' clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('active workspace directory'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' or 'list_workspaces', which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the path must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_workspace' or 'auto_select_workspace', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'change tracking' but doesn't disclose key behaviors: what data is tracked, whether it's persistent, if it requires specific permissions, or how it interacts with Git (implied by the 'branch' parameter). For a tool that likely creates state, this is a significant gap in transparency about side effects and operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Start a new coding session') and adds clarifying intent ('for change tracking'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a state-creating tool for coding sessions), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'coding session' entails, what 'change tracking' means in practice, or what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, status). For an agent to use this effectively, more context on behavior and outcomes is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('description' and 'branch') with their types and requirements. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a session context. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like format examples or interdependencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Start a new coding session') and purpose ('for change tracking'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'end_coding_session' and 'get_current_session' by indicating initiation rather than termination or querying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other session-related tools like 'rollback_session' or 'get_session_history'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 a session must be ended first), when it's appropriate (e.g., at project start vs. mid-work), or what happens if a session is already active. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'end_coding_session', 'get_current_session'), this lack of context leaves the agent guessing about proper sequencing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 basic action. It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is destructive (likely yes), what permissions are required, if it's reversible, what happens to dependent processes, or what the response looks like. For a potentially 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly concise at just four words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted text. Every word earns its place in conveying the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'stop' means (graceful shutdown vs force kill), what happens after stopping, error conditions, or return values. The context demands more completeness for safe agent usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'Process name'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have clarified what constitutes a valid server name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target resource ('a running server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'end_coding_session' or 'docker_containers' which might also stop processes, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), when not to use it, or what alternatives exist among the many sibling tools for process management.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to quickly understand the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when the tool is invoked (success/failure responses), doesn't mention any prerequisites or side effects, and provides no guidance on usage relative to sibling tools. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update specific project configuration settings' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('project configuration settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'save_project_config' or 'load_project_config', which appear to handle similar project configuration operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'save_project_config', 'load_project_config', 'get_allowed_commands', 'add_allowed_command', and 'remove_allowed_command' available, there's no indication of when this update tool is preferred over those other configuration-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Write content to a file' implies a mutation operation but lacks critical details: whether it overwrites existing files, creates new ones, requires specific permissions, handles errors (e.g., invalid paths), or affects file metadata. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Write content to a file'), making it immediately scannable 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.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (overwrite behavior, error handling), usage guidelines, and output expectations. Given the potential for file system changes and sibling tools like 'read_file' and 'delete_file', more guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter documentation ('path' and 'content'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as path format expectations (absolute vs. relative) or content encoding. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Write content to a file' clearly states the verb ('write') and resource ('file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'read_file' (reading) and 'delete_file' (deletion), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other file-modification tools like 'move_file' or 'apply_patch'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., file permissions, existing vs. new files), when not to use it (e.g., for appending vs. overwriting), or how it relates to siblings like 'create_directory' for path setup or 'read_file' for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 detailing behavior. It doesn't explain what 'most appropriate' means (e.g., based on recent usage, project type), whether it's safe or has side effects, or what happens if no workspace is found, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 and wastes no space, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (automatic selection implies decision logic) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover how appropriateness is determined, what is returned, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 discuss parameters, aligning with the schema, but doesn't add extra value beyond the baseline, warranting a score just below perfect.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Automatically select') and resource ('most appropriate VS Code workspace'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_workspace' or 'present_workspace_choice', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_workspace' or 'present_workspace_choice'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether workspaces must be detected first, or exclusions for when manual selection might be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'clean up' but doesn't specify what that entails—e.g., whether it stops/removes containers, deletes images/networks/volumes, requires confirmation, or has side effects. For a potentially destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of Docker cleanup (potentially destructive) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tracked' means, what resources are affected, or the outcome. For a tool that could impact system state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('clean up') and target resources ('tracked Docker containers and resources'), which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_containers (list) or docker_system (system info), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is not vague or tautological, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., after docker_run or docker_build), exclusions (e.g., not for active containers), or related tools (e.g., docker_containers for inspection first). Usage is implied only by the verb 'clean up,' which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'End' implies a mutation, but it doesn't clarify what ending entails—whether it saves data, cleans up resources, or has irreversible effects. 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens when ending a session, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline high score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('End') and the target resource ('the current coding session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'rollback_session' or 'get_current_session', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'rollback_session' or 'start_coding_session', nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for ending a session. It simply states what the tool does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format, potential errors, or any side effects (e.g., if it logs or modifies session state). For a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 and wastes no words, 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.
Completeness2/5Given 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 'information' is returned (e.g., session ID, duration, workspace details) or how it might be used in context with sibling tools. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, more context would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current coding session'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_session_info' or 'get_session_history', which appear related but have different scopes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_session_info' or 'get_session_history'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 action ('Get information') but does not specify what information is returned, whether it's read-only, if it requires permissions, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, earning its place clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 does not explain what 'information' includes, the return format, or any behavioral traits. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps, so it meets the baseline for a parameterless tool. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current coding session'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_current_session', which appears to serve a similar function, preventing a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'get_current_session' or 'get_session_history'. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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. 'Show commit history' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or whether it requires specific permissions. For a tool with 3 parameters and no 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal words to convey the essential function. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose clearly but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a read-only tool with full schema coverage, it meets the baseline but doesn't provide the completeness needed for optimal agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 (limit, oneline, cwd) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default values, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show commit history' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('commit history'). It distinguishes this from obvious siblings like git_commit (create commits) or git_diff (show changes), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings like compare_commits. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 to prefer git_log over other history-related tools like compare_commits or get_session_history, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., requires a git repository). Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 loading configuration but doesn't specify what happens if the file doesn't exist, what format the configuration is returned in, whether it caches results, or if it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant behavioral unknowns for a tool that reads system files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple read operation and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with good schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the target file format (.toml) and purpose, but doesn't address error conditions, return format, or integration context with sibling tools like 'save_project_config' and 'update_project_config'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'path' parameter completely. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high, but doesn't provide extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Load') and target resource ('project-specific configuration from .vscode-mcp.toml'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' or 'read_file' that might also access configuration data, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. For example, it doesn't mention whether this should be used instead of 'read_file' for configuration parsing, or if it's specific to VS Code workspace initialization. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 what the tool does but lacks details on how it works—e.g., whether it checks installation via command-line, returns a boolean or detailed status, has side effects, or handles errors. For a diagnostic 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It avoids redundancy and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on behavior, output format, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the agent is left guessing about the result structure and operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter semantics are required or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 ('Check') and resource ('Docker'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like docker_build or docker_run by focusing on availability checking rather than execution or management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all Docker-related siblings, keeping it from 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., before running Docker commands), exclusions (e.g., if Docker is already confirmed available), or related tools like docker_system or docker_containers. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 tool generates a sample config file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. For a tool that likely writes files, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for a configuration generation tool in a complex environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents 'saveToFile' well. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond the schema, but with zero parameters mentioned and high schema coverage, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Generate') and the resource ('a sample .vscode-mcp.toml configuration file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_project_config' or 'save_project_config', which might handle similar configuration files, so it misses 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, such as needing a workspace or specific context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'smart_workspace_init' that might involve configuration. This lack of context leaves usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 describes a read operation ('Get list'), implying it's non-destructive, but fails to specify details like response format, potential errors, or whether it requires specific permissions. This leaves significant gaps for a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is 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 redundant or unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. It meets the minimum viable standard for a simple read tool but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add or need to add parameter details, earning a high baseline score for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of commands that are allowed to run in this project', making the purpose explicit. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'remove_allowed_command' or 'add_allowed_command' in terms of scope or behavior, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 checking project configurations or other command-related tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't specify what happens if no workspace is set, whether it returns an absolute or relative path, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain what format the workspace path is returned in, what happens if no workspace is selected, or how this interacts with other workspace tools. The description meets basic requirements but lacks completeness for optimal agent understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool. A baseline of 4 is assigned since no parameter information is needed or expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does 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 workspace path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'auto_select_workspace', but the specific focus on the 'current' workspace provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'list_workspaces' or 'auto_select_workspace'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context requirements, or any scenarios where this tool would be preferred over other workspace-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 'List' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'recently used' means (timeframe, ordering), whether results are paginated, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides the basic purpose but lacks important context about what 'recently used' means, output format, or behavioral characteristics. Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters) and absence of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List recently used workspaces' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('recently used workspaces'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_workspace' or 'detect_vscode_workspaces', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 'get_workspace' or 'detect_vscode_workspaces'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 ('Rollback all changes') but lacks critical details: what constitutes 'changes' (files, commands, state?), whether rollback is reversible, permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. For a potentially destructive tool, 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear scope, with every word earning its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a potentially destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'rollback' entails operationally, what gets restored/removed, success/failure indicators, or system state after execution. The context demands more behavioral disclosure than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does 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 no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already states about 'confirm' and 'preserveUnstaged'. Baseline score of 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.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Rollback all changes') and target scope ('made in the current AI session'), using precise verb+resource language. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'end_coding_session' or 'get_session_history' by focusing on reversal of modifications rather than session management or information retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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., must be in an active session), exclusions (e.g., cannot rollback after certain actions), or related tools (e.g., 'preview_changes' before rollback). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 action ('List') but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., process IDs, names, statuses), whether it's real-time or cached, or any limitations like rate constraints. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information ('List all running processes'). It efficiently conveys the essential action and scope without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given 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 that likely returns process data. It doesn't explain the return format, such as whether it's a list, table, or structured object, or what fields are included. For a tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the response structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate since there are none to explain. This meets the baseline for zero parameters, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('running processes started by the agent'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'docker_containers' or 'run_command' that might also show processes, though the 'started by the agent' qualifier provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'started by the agent,' suggesting this tool is for monitoring the agent's own processes rather than system-wide ones. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like checking system logs or other monitoring tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
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 behavioral details. It doesn't disclose how the presentation occurs (e.g., UI prompt, list output), whether it's interactive, what happens on user selection, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('present detected workspaces', 'to user', 'for selection') earns its place by clarifying the action, target, and goal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimal but incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'present' entails behaviorally, what the user interaction looks like, or what happens after selection. For a tool that likely involves user interaction, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable given the lack of parameters. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters as it doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('present') and resource ('detected workspaces') with a specific goal ('for selection'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_workspaces' (which likely just lists) and 'auto_select_workspace' (which selects automatically), but could be more explicit about how it differs from 'get_workspace' or 'set_workspace'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after workspace detection (e.g., following 'detect_vscode_workspaces') and before selection, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'auto_select_workspace' or 'set_workspace'. It provides some context 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.
- Behavior2/5
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 'intelligently initialize' and 'user choice', hinting at interactive or smart behavior, but does not detail what initialization involves (e.g., file creation, configuration setup), potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with implied complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Intelligently initialize workspace') and adds key details ('with VS Code detection and user choice') without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's intent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's implied complexity (intelligent initialization with detection and choice), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or integration with siblings, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does 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 does not add param info, which is appropriate, but it could hint at implicit inputs (e.g., user interaction). Baseline is 4 for zero-param tools, as the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Intelligently initialize workspace with VS Code detection and user choice', specifying the action (initialize workspace) and key mechanisms (VS Code detection, user choice). It distinguishes from siblings like 'auto_select_workspace' by emphasizing intelligence and user interaction, though it could be more specific about what 'initialize' entails.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a workspace needs initialization with VS Code detection and user choice, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'auto_select_workspace' or 'set_workspace'. It provides some context but lacks clear exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/block/vscode-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server