openaaas-mcp-adapter

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavior for edge cases (e.g., already completed tasks), idempotency, side effects, or return values.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and depth. It is appropriate in length but does not earn its place fully.

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

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

Given the existence of an output schema, the description might be sufficient if that schema explains return values, but it omits usage context, error cases, and integration with siblings.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation for parameters. 'task_id' is self-explanatory, but 'server' remains ambiguous.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'cancel' and resource 'task', specifying it is for running tasks. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_task or submit_task.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The description only states what it does without context.

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

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: default download (first zip or first file), downloading all results, and that full paths are returned. It also warns against inferring subdirectories. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but is sufficient for a download tool.

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

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

The description is concise with two sentences and a bullet list. Purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Given 4 parameters and an output schema, the description explains two parameters and mentions return behavior. However, server and task_id are not addressed, and the tool's placement among siblings is not discussed, leaving some gaps.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains file_id and download_all, but task_id (required) and server are not described, leaving some parameters underspecified.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool downloads task result files and returns full paths. While it distinguishes from sibling 'list_files' by focusing on downloading, it does not explicitly differentiate from other file-related tools.

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

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

The description provides guidance on default behavior for file_id and download_all, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like list_files or poll_task. It instructs to use returned paths directly, which is helpful post-download.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the categories of information returned (scope, call specs, format, restrictions), providing basic behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key action and lists covered aspects without extraneous words. Slightly more detail (e.g., parameter hints) could improve structure without harming conciseness.

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

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

Given two parameters with 0% schema coverage and no explanation in the description, the tool definition is incomplete for correct invocation. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but input parameter semantics are entirely missing, making the description insufficient for a new user.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the two parameters (service_id and server). Without parameter semantics, the agent cannot reliably construct the input. The description must compensate for missing schema descriptions but does not.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed usage instructions for a specified service, listing covered aspects (capability, call spec, return format, restrictions). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like list_services or get_task.

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

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

The description implies use when needing service usage details, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Among siblings, list_services lists available services, while this tool provides usage details, so some differentiation is implied but not explicit.

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

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

Without annotations, the description warns against polling, a key behavioral constraint. It does not detail other aspects like idempotency, but the warning adds value.

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

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

Very concise: two sentences with front-loaded purpose and warning, no fluff.

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

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

Output schema exists, covering return values. Description covers the essential usage rule but lacks parameter documentation, leaving some gaps for a simple tool.

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

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain parameters (task_id, server). Only task_id is implied but not described.

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

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

The description clearly states it queries task status and final results, and explicitly warns against active polling, distinguishing it from the sibling poll_task.

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

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

Explicitly states when to use (only on user explicit request) and when not to (do not poll), providing clear context for agent decision.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'list files' without stating read-only nature, error handling, or output behavior, which is insufficient for an agent to predict side effects.

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

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and could benefit from additional detail without sacrificing conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool has 2 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use the 'server' parameter or how results are returned, even though the output schema might cover return format, the behavioral context is missing.

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

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'task_id' or 'server' parameters. The agent must guess their meaning, leading to potential misuse.

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

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

The description '列出任务的结果文件' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (result files of a task), making the tool's purpose understandable even in a minimal form. It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_result' and 'get_task'.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_result' or 'get_task'. There is no context about prerequisites or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations provided, and the description merely says 'list' without disclosing any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, or special conditions).

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

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, zero waste; perfectly concise for a tool with no parameters.

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

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

Description is minimal but sufficient given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and no parameters; however, it could mention what happens when no servers are configured.

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

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

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so baseline of 3 applies; description adds no extra parameter meaning.

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

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

Description clearly states 'List all configured servers' (列出所有已配置的服务器), using a specific verb (list) and resource (servers), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_server or set_server_url.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description only states what it does without context or exclusion conditions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It hints at a read operation ('轻量摘要') but does not state safety, authorization needs, side effects, or output format. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand implications.

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

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous content. However, its brevity omits essential details, making it slightly under-specified rather than efficiently clear. Nonetheless, it avoids verbosity.

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

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

Despite having an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what constitutes a 'lightweight summary' or how the optional 'server' parameter filters results. The tool is simple, but the description still lacks sufficient detail for reliable agent use.

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

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

The input schema has one parameter 'server' with 0% described coverage. The description does not explain what 'server' means or how it affects results. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but fails to add any parameter meaning.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool retrieves a list of agent services as a lightweight summary ('获取可用的 Agent 服务列表（轻量摘要）'). The verb '获取' (get) and resource '服务列表' (service list) are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_servers, leaving some ambiguity.

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

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

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer list_services over list_servers or discover.

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

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

Without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: polling interval (20s), termination states, timeout option, default no timeout, and a strong agent usage restriction.

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

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

Concise, well-structured, front-loaded with purpose and key constraint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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

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

Despite output schema existing, the description adequately covers polling behavior, usage constraints, and parameter semantics. Missing explanation of return value but polling tools often have predictable output.

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

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains timeout_seconds but not task_id or server. task_id is required but assumed obvious; server is missing explanation. Partial coverage.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool polls a task until final result, specifying it is only for when the user explicitly asks. It distinguishes from other tools by its polling behavior.

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

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

Explicitly states '仅用户明确要求时使用' (only when user explicitly requests) and provides example user commands. Also advises agent to ask user instead of polling automatically.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool registers and returns an api_key and is one-time, but does not mention side effects (e.g., duplicate registration), authentication requirements, or error handling.

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

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

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core action and a critical note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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

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

For a simple registration tool, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter meanings and return value (even though an output schema exists). It is adequate but leaves gaps, especially given no annotations.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description gives no explanation of the parameters 'name' or 'server'. The user is left to infer their meaning from the tool's purpose, which is insufficient.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool registers a client account and retrieves an api_key, with a note that it is only needed once. It uses specific verb+resource and is distinct from sibling tools like cancel_task or discover.

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

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

The description implies one-time usage but does not explicitly state when or when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives. The hint '仅需一次' provides some guidance but lacks direct comparison or context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions deletion and a constraint. It does not disclose whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to associated data, or any permissions needed.

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

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

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the action and a key constraint, with no unnecessary words.

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

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

For a simple deletion tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks details on side effects, validation, or return value behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only refers to 'specified server' without clarifying what the 'server' parameter expects (e.g., ID, name, or format), providing minimal added value.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (delete/remove) and the resource (server configuration), and adds a specific constraint (cannot delete default server), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_servers and set_default_server.

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

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

The description only provides a constraint (cannot delete default server) but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden. It only states the action without disclosing any side effects, authorization needs, or consequences. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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

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

Extremely concise (one phrase) but critically under-specified. Conciseness is not valuable when it omits essential information for correct tool invocation.

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

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

Given no annotations, no parameter semantics, and the existence of siblings, the description is vastly incomplete. The agent lacks information on output, side effects, and context. A brief phrase is insufficient for a tool that modifies configuration.

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

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

The parameter 'server' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds no meaning—no hint on format (e.g., ID, name) or valid values. The agent must guess.

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

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

The description '切换默认服务器' (switch default server) clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_server_url' and 'remove_server'. However, it is minimal and lacks explicit differentiation.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_server_url, list_servers). No context about prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions persistence ('save to config file') but lacks details on overwrite behavior, validation, or side effects.

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

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

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

Given the presence of an output schema and two parameters, the description fails to describe parameter semantics or the effect of the tool. It is too minimal for a configuration-changing tool.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain either parameter. The meaning of 'server_url' and especially the optional 'server' parameter (with default empty string) is left entirely unclear.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb (设置, set) and the resource (服务器地址, server address) and the action (保存到配置文件, save to configuration file). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_default_server and remove_server.

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

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_servers or set_default_server. The description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions file upload constraints (current directory, 100MB limit) but does not state whether the operation is destructive, requires authentication, or what error handling looks like. For a submission tool, this is insufficient.

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

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

The description is concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It efficiently communicates file upload constraints without unnecessary words.

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

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

Given 6 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It only explains input_files constraints and omits behavior, output, and other parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing parameter details.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so parameters have no descriptions. The description only explains 'input_files' (local file paths, constraints). Other parameters like service_id, task_prompt, output_prompt, session_id, server remain undocumented. Adds value for one parameter but leaves major gaps.

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

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

The description clearly states 'Submit task to remote agent (support file upload)', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It adds file upload constraints, making the purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'discover' or 'get_task', but the core action is unambiguous.

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

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools have distinct names (cancel, discover, download), so usage is implied, but the description does not provide context or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates mutation ('modify') but fails to disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or the role of the 'server' parameter.

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

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-informative. It conveys the basic purpose but omits critical context, making it insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

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

Given the presence of two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, side effects, or usage scenarios, 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.

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

Input schema parameters have zero description coverage, and the description does not clarify the meaning or purpose of 'name' or 'server'. The agent cannot infer how to use these parameters correctly.

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

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

The description clearly states the action (modify) and the resource (current client username), making the purpose clear. However, it is in Chinese and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though no similar update tool exists among siblings.

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

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. The description lacks 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.