mcp-server-smartsheet-rm

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.1.3
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools are distinct CRUD operations on specific entities, but rm_create_approval and rm_update_time_approval_status overlap in approving/rejecting time entries, and rm_create_user_bill_rate vs rm_update_user (which also updates bill rate) could be confused. The sheer number of similarly named list/get/create/update/delete tools also increases misselection risk despite generally clear entity naming.
Naming Consistency4/5
The rm_<verb>_<noun> convention is used consistently across most of the API, with list/get/create/update/delete prefixes. Deviations like rm_fill_weekly_timesheet, rm_reconcile_and_submit_week, rm_lock_timesheet, and rm_get_report_rows are readable but break the strict pattern.
Tool Count1/5
98 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range and even beyond the 50+ threshold for a coherence score of 1. Even for a broad resource-management domain, this creates an unwieldy surface with many micro-CRUD endpoints and convenience functions.
Completeness4/5
The surface is very broad, covering users, roles, disciplines, clients, projects, phases, assignments, time entries, expenses, approvals, holidays, leave types, tags, custom fields, reports, and webhooks. Minor gaps exist—no update for tags, expense categories, placeholder resources, or client contacts, and no delete for user bill rates—but these are secondary and won't block core workflows.
Average 3.4/5 across 98 of 98 tools scored. Lowest: 1.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 18 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on September 3, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
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.json to 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-read-only update that is not destructive, and the description merely restates 'Update' with no additional behavioral information. It does not disclose whether fields are patched individually, whether null values clear fields, or any side effects. Since no annotations are contradicted, this is not scored as a contradiction but it adds nothing beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. A stronger tool definition would front-load purpose and include field or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits update semantics, optional-field behavior, and routing guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but behavioral and parameter context remain missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 mention holiday_id, date, name, or end_date. The schema's titles and types provide minimal information, but the description adds no semantics such as which fields are updatable or how optional null values behave. This is a significant gap for a four-parameter mutation tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name ('Update a holiday'), providing no detail beyond the resource and action. It does not differentiate from rm_create_holiday or rm_delete_holiday except by the verb, which is already present in the name. This is a tautological definition rather than a useful purpose statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like rm_create_holiday or rm_delete_holiday. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The only implied usage context comes from the tool name itself.
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?
Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which the description's 'Create' action agrees with. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: no mention of side effects, required permissions, uniqueness constraints, or what 'placeholder' means operationally.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, making it easy to read. However, the extreme brevity crosses from concise into under-specified: it gives no context, parameter rationale, or usage nuance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, an output schema, and a large sibling tool family, this single-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the semantic meaning of a placeholder resource and its parameters is entirely absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description says nothing about the parameters. It does not explain that title is required, or what role, location, or discipline represent in the context of a placeholder resource. The description provides zero value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Create a placeholder resource.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_user or create_project at a basic level, but the meaning of 'placeholder resource' is never explained, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that placeholder resources can later be listed or deleted via rm_list_placeholder_resources and rm_delete_placeholder_resource, nor does it explain when a placeholder is preferable to a real resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are aggregated totals, but does not disclose behavior such as how report_parameters is interpreted, whether the computation has limits, or why openWorldHint applies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The sentence is short and has no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. A single vague clause is not an appropriately sized description for a tool with an undocumented nested parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite an output schema and annotations, the essential input contract is missing. An agent cannot construct report_parameters or decide whether this tool fits the request, so the description is materially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single required parameter report_parameters is an opaque object with additionalProperties:true and no schema descriptions. The description completely fails to compensate for 0% coverage, so an agent cannot know what keys, values, or shape to supply.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a verb and resource ('Generate aggregated custom report totals'), making the general purpose understandable. However, 'custom report totals' is vague—it does not define what kind of report, what totals are computed, or how this relates to similar report tools like rm_get_report_rows.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer rm_get_report_rows, or what types of reporting requests should be routed here.
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?
The description states that the tool updates a definition, which is a mutating operation, yet the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction and undermines the agent's ability to reason about side effects. The description also says nothing about partial vs. full updates, reversibility, or permission requirements, so the contradiction is not mitigated by other behavioral disclaimers.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically clear sentence with no redundant wording, so it is structurally concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of merely restating the tool's name with slightly different words. It earns a middle score because it is not bloated, but it also provides almost no substantive information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists and annotations provide some safety signals, the tool has one required parameter and three total parameters, none of which are described in the schema or description. The description omits critical usage context such as whether the update is patch-like, what constraints apply to options, or what identifiers are accepted. This is insufficient for a mutating tool with zero schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining the three parameters. It does not explain that custom_field_id identifies which field to update, nor what name and options represent. An agent cannot determine how to construct an invocation from the description alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the operation ('Update') and the resource ('a custom field definition'), which matches and clarifies the tool name. It is distinguishable from sibling custom-field tools like rm_create_custom_field and rm_delete_custom_field at a surface level, though it does not explicitly call out any alternatives or scope. Overall the purpose is clear, but it lacks the extra detail that would make it a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does 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 instead of rm_create_custom_field, rm_get_custom_field, or rm_delete_custom_field. It also does not mention prerequisites such as the custom field needing to already exist or what scenarios warrant an update versus a create or delete. An agent is left to infer the usage entirely from the tool name.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description's 'Add' matches the write nature of the tool. However, the description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., whether client_id must reference an existing client, optional fields, or side effects), and does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—one short sentence with no filler. It is readable and front-loaded, but it is so spare that it borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists, the description lacks operational context: it doesn't explain that client_id identifies an existing client, which fields are required beyond what the schema shows, or how this differs from other client-contact tools. Given the tool's six parameters and related sibling operations, the description is not complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the six parameters (client_id, first_name, last_name, email, phone, title). It therefore adds no meaning beyond the raw property names and types, and does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a short declarative sentence specifying the action 'add' and the resource 'a contact for a client.' It aligns with the tool name and clearly separates it from create-tag or create-client operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools. It is clear but not exceptional.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to choose this over related sibling tools such as rm_list_client_contacts or rm_delete_client_contact. The only usage context is implied by 'for a client,' which tells the agent the contact is associated with a client but does not set preconditions or mention 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?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as duplicate handling, naming constraints, or side effects of creating a tag.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than effective, information-dense conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and an output schema exists, the description omits useful context such as what tags are used for, uniqueness expectations, whether creation requires existing configuration, or any relationship to other tools. This is thin for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description 'Create a tag.' adds no meaning to the single required parameter 'name'. It does not explain name format, uniqueness, maximum length, or examples, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance beyond the parameter's title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a tag.' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rm_list_tags and rm_delete_tag by operation type, though it does not elaborate on what a tag is.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, duplicates, or related tools such as rm_list_tags, so an agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and 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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as partial-update semantics, null-field behavior, idempotency, or permission requirements. 'Update' merely restates the mutation intent already visible in the annotations and name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The sentence is short and grammatically simple, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It conveys no useful information beyond the tool name and does not use structure to organize any of the material an 8-parameter update tool needs.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and an openWorldHint, the missing guidance is substantial: partial-update semantics, whether null clears a field, whether archived is settable, and whether extra fields are accepted. The output schema covers return values, but the input side is left almost entirely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names zero parameters. With 8 parameters, including nullable fields, an archived flag, and a required client_id, the agent gets no explanation of what each parameter means or how null/default values behave. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Update a client record.' This distinguishes it from sibling client tools like create/delete/get/list at a basic level. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and adds no detail about scope, fields, or semantics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus rm_create_client or rm_delete_client, no mention that the client must already exist, and no exclusions or alternative references. The only usage signal is the word 'Update,' which is implied by the tool's name.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Update' aligns with a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as side effects, permission requirements, or whether unspecified role properties are affected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, omitting parameter context and usage details that would make the short length valuable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter update tool with zero schema coverage and no usage guidance, this description is too thin. The output schema relieves the need to explain return values, but the agent still lacks enough information to know what updating a role entails or how to fill the parameters correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 role_id or name parameters. It only restates the action without indicating that name is the updatable field or how role_id should be provided, leaving the agent with no meaningful semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly uses the verb 'Update' with the resource 'role', and the word 'existing' distinguishes it from create/delete/list role siblings. It is not maximally informative about scope or fields, but it is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus rm_create_role or rm_delete_role, and there is no mention of prerequisites like the role already existing. The verb 'Update' implies modification, but the description leaves the routing decision entirely to inference.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds nothing about pagination, row limits, required report configuration, or any other behavior beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant text. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a free-form nested parameter and no parameter guidance, the description is incomplete for correct invocation. The output schema may cover return values and annotations cover safety, but the central input contract is undocumented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The sole parameter, report_parameters, is an open object with additionalProperties true and 0% schema description coverage. The description provides no details about what keys should be included, what formats are expected, or what 'custom report' parameters should look like, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid request.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific deliverable, 'detailed custom report rows', and uses a verb, 'Generate', that conveys an action. It is not tautological and the 'rows' wording distinguishes it from the sibling rm_get_report_totals, though it does not explicitly explain what 'custom report' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_get_report_totals or the many list/get tools. The description implies it is for report rows, but it does not provide context, 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?
Annotations already establish that this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail, such as whether values are merged or replaced, how null/empty values are handled, or whether target_type has specific allowed entity kinds.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise, though the conciseness trades away essential semantic detail that the schema does not provide.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three required parameters, a nested values object, and no schema parameter descriptions, the tool needs substantially more context to be used correctly. The annotations and output schema fill some gaps, but the description still omits the values mapping convention and target_type semantics, so completeness is low.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 by explaining target_id, target_type, and values. It does not explain the shape of the values map, valid target_type values, or how target_id maps to an entity, leaving all three required parameters underspecified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Set') and identifies the resource ('custom field values'), making the action distinct from read-only siblings like rm_list_custom_field_values. However, 'entity' is left vague and the description never explains which target types are supported, so it is only moderately specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related custom-field tools or other mutation tools. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent to infer suitability solely from the name.
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?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as required associations, default values, or side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is perhaps too sparse for the complexity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with seven parameters, five required, and no schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention which fields are required, what is_billable defaults to, what date format is expected, or how this expense creation relates to categories and users.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for explaining the seven parameters, but it does not. The phrase 'project expense item' vaguely implies project and expense-related fields, but it gives no detail about project_id, user_id, amount, date, category, notes, or is_billable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Log a project expense item' clearly states the action (logging/creating) and the resource (a project expense item). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like rm_list_expenses, rm_update_expense, and rm_delete_expense, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other expense-related or creation tools. An agent must infer from the tool name and sibling list that this is for creating a new expense, but no context or exclusions are given.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description itself adds no behavioral context, such as pagination behavior, archived filtering, or what is included in the list, so it provides no transparency beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, so it is efficient. But it is so minimal that it essentially restates the tool's purpose without adding explanatory value, making it concise but under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only list operation with all-optional parameters and an output schema, the basic call is understandable. Still, the description does not clarify the archived filter semantics, pagination defaults, or the meaning of the openWorldHint annotation, leaving moderate gaps for non-default use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 page, archived, or per_page. The parameter names and defaults offer some self-evident meaning, but the definition does not compensate for the coverage gap, especially for the ambiguous 'archived' parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource construction, 'List clients,' which unambiguously identifies the operation as returning the collection of clients. It is distinguishable from siblings like rm_get_client or rm_list_client_contacts by its resource and plural form, but it adds no detail about scope or filtering, so it does not reach a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as rm_get_client or rm_list_client_contacts, and any usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already establish this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scoping trait that results are tied to 'a specific entity,' which clarifies the operation is not a global list. However, it does not disclose further behavioral context such as pagination, ordering, or handling of entities without custom field values, so the additional transparency is modest.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no fluff or redundacy, embodying the conciseness ideal. It front-loades the verb and resource. However, the sentence is so sparse that it sacrifices valuable content for brevity, so it does not earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only two parameters but both are undocumented, and the toolbox contains several custom-field-related siblings that could be confused, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The presence of an output schema helps with return values but does nothing for input semantics. The agent would need to guess acceptable target_type values or resolve ambiguity through trial and error.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions for target_id or target_type, and the description itself gives no parameter semantics beyond the vague phrase 'entity.' It does not explain what target_type values are acceptable (e.g., 'user,' 'project,' 'time_entry'), how target_id relates to target_type, or whether either parameter is effectively required. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description bears the full burden, and it fails to meet it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('custom field values'), with an explicit scoping prepositional phrase ('for a specific entity'). This distinguishes it from sibling rm_list_custom_fields, which lists field definitions rather than values, and from rm_set_custom_field_values, which writes. However, it does not explicitly name or disambiguate against these siblings, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools such as rm_list_custom_fields, rm_get_custom_field, or rm_set_custom_field_values. It also omits prerequisites like which target_type values are valid or whether target_id is required. The only implication is that one should call it when interested in values attached to a specific entity, which is not explicit enough.
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?
Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no extra behavioral context such as required fields, side effects, uniqueness constraints, or response behavior, so it provides minimal value beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately terse, though it borders on under-specification; however, for a simple create operation brevity is acceptable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits useful context like the required 'name' parameter, potential uniqueness of client names, or any distinction from other create tools, leaving room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. It does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to rely entirely on property names and titles. Although the parameters are simple strings, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already shows.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('client record'), clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes from sibling update/delete/get/list tools by the action, and from rm_create_client_contact by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like rm_update_client or rm_create_client_contact. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual cues beyond the obvious 'create a client' action.
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?
Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, and the description adds no further context such as duplicate-name handling, uniqueness rules, or permission requirements. With openWorldHint=true signaling variable behavior, additional behavioral disclosure would have been valuable but is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; efficiency is excellent. It is merely under-specified in content, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter create operation with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the essentials are present. The notable gaps are duplicate-name behavior and any prerequisites, which matter more given openWorldHint=true.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage for the single 'name' parameter is 0%, and the description says nothing about its meaning, format, uniqueness, or length beyond what the parameter name already implies. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('role'), and is easily distinguished from siblings rm_update_role, rm_delete_role, and rm_list_roles. However, the sentence adds essentially nothing beyond the tool name itself, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus rm_update_role or rm_list_roles, and mentions no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent gets no hint about whether it should check for an existing role first or when creation is the appropriate choice.
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?
Annotations indicate this is a mutating but non-destructive operation with open-world semantics, and the description merely restates the create action without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose constraints like email uniqueness, default user state, or side effects, leaving the agent without meaningful behavioral insight beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. However, it is concise at the expense of substance, so it is not a model of efficient information delivery.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 10 parameters, no schema-level descriptions, and many related sibling tools, a one-line description leaves significant gaps around required fields, optional field semantics, and expected behavior. The output schema helps with return values, but call criteria and parameter intent remain under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names none of the 10 parameters or their roles. Even the three required fields are not explained in terms of format or relationship to the user profile, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new user profile in Smartsheet RM'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling operations like rm_update_user, rm_delete_user, and rm_list_users. The action and target are immediately unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as rm_create_placeholder_resource for non-human resources or rm_update_user for existing profiles. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that should route an agent here.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely repeats the mutating nature without adding new behavioral context. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, whether null fields reset values, required permissions, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, with no filler. It is about as concise as a description can be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 5-parameter update tool with no parameter descriptions, the single sentence is insufficient. It does not mention that all fields except expense_id are optional, how partial updates behave, or how this tool relates to sibling expense tools. The annotations and output schema cover safety and return shape, but not the operational details an agent needs to call it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning, but it names none of the five updatable fields or the required expense_id. Parameter names and types are self-explanatory to a degree, but no additional meaning, constraints, or format details are added.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('a logged expense item'), so an agent can tell it modifies an existing expense rather than creating or deleting one. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rm_create_expense or rm_delete_expense, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The sentence only states the action, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list when this should be chosen over create, list, get, or delete expense 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?
The description only says 'update' and gains no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotations already imply (write operation, non-destructive). It fails to disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields are changed) or full, what happens if the phase does not exist, or any permission/rate-limit considerations. With openWorldHint and destructiveHint present, the description adds essentially no new behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is concise and directly states the core operation. However, given the tool's complexity (7 parameters), the extreme brevity crosses from concise into sparse, so it does not fully earn a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an update tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no mention of partial-update semantics or field purpose, this one-sentence description is inadequate. Although an output schema exists and may cover return values, the description omits critical usage context and field meaning, leaving the agent to make risky assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description lists none of the parameters. Optional fields like name, budget, start_date, and description are left entirely unexplained. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving an agent to guess parameter formats and update behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a clear, specific verb+resource phrase: 'Update an existing project phase.' The word 'update' and 'existing' distinguish it from sibling tools like rm_create_project_phase, rm_get_project_phase, and rm_delete_project_phase. An agent can immediately determine what this tool does without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that one should only update phases that exist, nor does it differentiate from rm_update_project or rm_create_project_phase. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool references 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?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose partial-update semantics, how null values are handled, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or any permission/validation behavior. Annotations already convey non-read-only and non-destructive, so no extra value is added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves out useful information that is penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with five parameters and potential ambiguity around optional field updates and null values, this one-sentence description is incomplete. It does not clarify whether omitted parameters leave fields unchanged or whether null clears them, nor does it address when updating is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 compensate by explaining any parameters such as entry_id, date, hours, notes, or is_billable. The agent gets no additional meaning beyond the raw schema titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Update', and a clear resource, 'time entry'. The word 'existing' distinguishes it from rm_create_time_entry, and the resource distinguishes it from update tools for other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of related tools like rm_create_time_entry or rm_delete_time_entry. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds some behavioral context by saying the tool can 'submit or approve' records and by limiting the operation to time entries and expense items. It does not disclose side effects, status transitions, permissions, or whether notifications or locking occur, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is easy to scan and quickly communicates the core resource and type constraint, though the compression costs some clarity in purpose and behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that creates or approves records, the description omits important context: valid status values, relationship between notes/status and the approval action, behavior differences between submitting and approving, and how this tool relates to approval-management siblings. The output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values, but the remaining gaps are material.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 only clarifies approvable_type's allowed values; it does not explain the meaning of status (despite its default 'approved'), what notes are for, or how approvable_ids should be provided. This leaves most parameters semantically underdocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a clear action area ('Submit or approve') and the target resource ('approvable records'), with explicit allowed types ('time_entries' or 'expense_items'). However, 'Submit or approve' is slightly ambiguous about whether it creates an approval object or directly changes record status, and it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rm_update_time_approval_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It only scopes valid values for approvable_type, which is more parameter guidance than usage context. An agent would not know whether to use this tool versus rm_update_time_approval_status or rm_delete_approval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context about date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and placement on a project or phase, but it does not disclose behavior around allocation_mode, percent, fixed_hours, or potential conflicts.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. It loses one point because the extreme brevity leaves out details that an agent needs for a 10-parameter creation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the tool has 10 parameters and no schema descriptions for any of them. The description explains only the date format and high-level target, omitting guidance on optional fields like allocation_mode, percent, fixed_hours, and phase_id usage. This is incomplete for confident invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 only clarifies date formatting and the project/phase placement, but leaves allocation_mode, percent vs fixed_hours, hours_per_day, and note semantics unexplained, despite those names not being fully self-evident.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('resource assignment') with an explicit scope of 'project or phase'. It is clear enough to distinguish from tools like rm_create_assignment_subtask, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_update_assignment, rm_delete_assignment, or rm_create_assignment_subtask. It also does not mention prerequisites like whether a project or phase must already exist.
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?
Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description simply restates the creation action without adding behavioral context such as permissions, validation, idempotency, or effects on parent records. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also adds little beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward create tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with an output schema and annotations, the description is close to adequate. However, the total absence of parameter semantics and usage guidance leaves some gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly, especially around what its parameters require.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description does not explain what project_id, assignment_id, description, or completed mean or how they relate. The phrase 'under a project assignment' hints at the parent relationship but is not enough to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('subtask under a project assignment'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like rm_create_assignment or rm_list_assignment_subtasks. It is clear and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus rm_create_assignment or the subtask list/delete siblings. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are mentioned; the description only implies its purpose.
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?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is known. The description adds only the parent relationship 'under a project' but does not disclose validation behavior, failure modes, side effects on existing phases, or any additional 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, repetition, or structural waste. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the core action immediately clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, 4 required, and 0% schema description coverage, this one-sentence description is insufficient on its own. It does not explain required inputs, date constraints, value semantics, or the relationship between a phase and its project, so an agent would need external knowledge to invoke it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions no parameter names, formats, or relationships beyond the word 'project.' It does not clarify the four required fields, the meaning of start_date/end_date, or that budget and description are optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'a new phase under a project,' making the operation unambiguous and distinct from sibling create tools like rm_create_project and rm_create_tag. The phrase 'under a project' also signals the parent-child relationship, so an agent can tell this tool apart from other create tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_update_project_phase, rm_delete_project_phase, or rm_list_project_phases. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that should trigger this specific 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no extra behavioral context such as idempotency, duplicate handling, required permissions, or side effects beyond creating a record. The only added detail, the date format, is parameter semantics rather than 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for the core action, even though the brevity leaves other dimensions underserved.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters, 4 required, zero schema descriptions, and no guidance about defaults or relationships between fields, this one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in non-trivial cases. The output schema exists, but parameter semantics remain largely unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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, but it only explains the date format. It provides no additional meaning for hours, is_billable, phase_id, notes, custom_field_values, or the ID parameters, leaving the agent to infer most semantics from property names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Create'), a specific resource ('a new time entry'), and the target context ('for a user on a project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_update_time_entry, rm_get_time_entry, and rm_delete_time_entry. The date format hint is a useful addition.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_fill_weekly_timesheet or rm_update_time_entry. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between creating a single entry and using a bulk timesheet tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Get project details.' It adds a little context by naming what details are included, but it does not disclose behaviors such as whether phases are included by default or how the response is structured. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but could have included a brief note about with_phases or usage alternatives without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool this is minimal but not fully adequate. The description does not explain the with_phases parameter, doesn't differentiate from sibling project tools, and relies entirely on annotations for behavioral context. Given zero schema parameter descriptions, the overall context is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mentions 'phases' which relates to the with_phases parameter, but it doesn't explain that with_phases controls whether phases are returned, nor does it clarify the project_id format or any constraints. The parameter meaning is only partially conveyed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project details') and lists concrete content areas (budget, phases, client, dates). This makes the tool's main function clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like rm_list_projects or rm_get_project_phase.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_list_projects for listing projects or rm_update_project for modifying them. The verb 'Get' implies a single-project read, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'List'—notably, it does not disclose pagination behavior or how the page/per_page parameters affect results, even though defaults exist in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately minimal for a tool whose safety profile is already carried by annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema and read-only annotations, so return value details and side-effect safety are structurally covered. However, the description omits any mention of pagination or the scope of the listing (e.g., all tags vs filtered), which would help an agent know what to expect before invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the input schema provides no explanation of page or per_page. The description 'List tags' does not compensate by clarifying that page controls the offset and per_page controls the page size, leaving parameter semantics entirely implicit and undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'tags', clearly identifying a read-only enumeration operation. It inherently distinguishes from sibling tools rm_create_tag and rm_delete_tag, though it provides no scope or filtering context beyond the bare action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. There is no mention of pagination strategy or situations where create/delete tag tools would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
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?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context: it does not disclose consequences for the timesheet workflow (e.g., interaction with locks or submission state), whether the change is reversible, required permissions, or side effects hinted at by openWorldHint=true. The status list is minimal semantic value, not 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the verb, resource, and scope appear first, and the parenthetical adds useful status specifics. It is genuinely concise rather than under-specified, though it leaves room for additional value that a slightly longer description could have provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-changing tool embedded in a timesheet approval workflow, this description is thin. It omits approver_notes semantics, workflow ordering relative to siblings like rm_lock_timesheet, rm_reconcile_and_submit_week, and rm_confirm_suggested_hours, and any prerequisites. The output schema and annotations lift some burden, but the usage and parameter gaps matter for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full semantic burden. It adds real value by enumerating the legal status values (the schema has no enums) and by identifying entry_ids as time entries and user_id as the entry owner ('for a user'). However, approver_notes is never explained, and user_id's role (owner versus approver) remains ambiguous, so compensation is incomplete.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific operation (approve or reject), a specific resource (time entries), and a scope (for a user), which is enough to separate it from siblings like rm_update_time_entry (content edits) and rm_list_approvals/rm_create_approval (approval records). It stops short of a 5 because it never explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling, and the parenthetical includes 'pending', a status the verb 'approve or reject' does not cover.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as rm_update_time_entry, rm_lock_timesheet, rm_reconcile_and_submit_week, or rm_list_approvals. There are no stated prerequisites, no workflow ordering, and no conditions/exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name and one-line description.
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?
The description only restates that a discipline is created and provides no additional behavioral context such as idempotency, side effects, uniqueness constraints, or required permissions. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only operation, so there is no contradiction, but the description adds nothing beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks nuance about uniqueness or prerequisites, but the low complexity and presence of structured annotations and schema keep the gap small.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 the 'name' parameter beyond the implications of creating a discipline. The schema only provides the title 'Name', leaving format, uniqueness, and constraints undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new discipline'), so an agent can understand the tool's basic function. It differentiates from sibling update/delete/list operations only through the verb, but does not add extra distinguishing context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool rather than rm_update_discipline, rm_delete_discipline, or rm_list_disciplines. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Update' is consistent with a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no extra behavioral details such as partial-update semantics, validation rules, permission requirements, or consequences of archiving. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single 13-word sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core purpose; it is appropriately concise for what it attempts to convey.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter mutating tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits the required user_id role, patch-like update behavior, validation expectations for role/discipline/bill_rate, and archive consequences. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but key usage context is still missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for the 10 parameters. It covers role, discipline, bill_rate, and archived, and loosely groups first_name/last_name/email under 'profile', but it omits cost_rate, billability_target, and user_id, and does not clarify whether omitted fields remain unchanged. The property titles are self-evident, but the description still leaves meaningful gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the concrete verb 'Update' with 'user' as the resource and enumerates the specific mutable aspects: profile, role, discipline, bill rate, or archive state. This clearly distinguishes it from rm_create_user, rm_delete_user, and rm_get_user. It does not explicitly differentiate from rm_update_role or rm_set_user_status, but the field list makes the target unambiguous enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent could confuse updating a user's role with rm_update_role, or a user's status with rm_set_user_status. The field list only implies the usage context; no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive operation, and the description adds that the mutation is specifically confirmation of unconfirmed suggestions. It does not disclose edge cases like whether already-confirmed entries are skipped, whether the action is reversible, or whether it triggers downstream notifications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it packs the key scope information (all, unconfirmed, user, date range) efficiently. It loses a point because the domain term 'scheduled suggestions' is used without any definition or cross-reference.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with three required parameters and zero schema-description coverage, the description leaves important operational context unstated: exact date semantics, what 'scheduled suggestions' are, how confirmation relates to approval status, and any side effects. An output schema exists, so return values are less critical, but the missing usage and parameter guidance makes this incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema property descriptions cover 0% of the parameters, so the description needed to clarify date formats, inclusiveness, and user_id semantics, but it only loosely maps 'a user' to user_id and 'date range' to from_date/to_date. The anyOf integer/string user_id is left unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Auto-confirm') and a specific resource ('all unconfirmed scheduled suggestions') scoped to a user and date range, so an agent can tell this is a bulk confirmation action. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rm_update_time_approval_status or rm_list_user_suggestions, which keeps it just below a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended scenario—automatically confirming all unconfirmed scheduled suggestions for a user over a date range—is inferable from the description, so the use case is not entirely unspecified. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over individual approval/status tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond 'Query', but it does not contradict the annotations either. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. Every word contributes meaning. It could add more detail without losing efficiency, but as written it is well-sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema means return values do not need explaining here. The tool is a fairly simple read query, and annotations cover behavioral safety. However, date parameter semantics and the relationship to confusable siblings remain unclear, so the definition is only minimally complete for effective invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It only clarifies the 'user' aspect of user_id and says nothing about from_date/to_date ranges, default null behavior, or how these dates relate to the availability calculation. The parameter semantics are therefore insufficiently explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Query scheduled hours vs available capacity for a user.' This is concrete and immediately understood. It does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named sibling rm_get_user_utilization, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_get_user_utilization or other user-related queries. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the basic statement of what it queries. The agent must infer the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the description is not required to restate that. It does add useful scoping context — results span projects or respect user/project filters — which parallels the date-range scoping in the calibration HIGH example. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior (default 50 per page, single page per call) or the fact that an unfiltered call returns all assignments across the whole workspace, which is a behaviorally relevant gap for an agent. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the verb and resource lead immediately, and the scoping/filter clause follows. It is efficiently sized for a list tool, though a brief structured breakdown of the two filter dimensions (dates vs. user/project) would improve scanability given six parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema covers return values and annotations cover the read-only/non-destructive profile, but the tool still has six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the sole carrier of parameter semantics. It omits the date-range filtering exposed by from_date/to_date and the pagination behavior exposed by page/per_page — both are needed for an agent to invoke the tool correctly (e.g., to fetch all assignments, not just the first 50). The description is not complete enough for this tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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, and it only maps two of six parameters: 'filtered by user/project' corresponds to user_id and project_id. It is silent on from_date/to_date (format and semantics), page/per_page (pagination behavior), whether user and project filters are combinable, and why the ID parameters accept both integer and string. The description adds a sliver of meaning but fails to carry the burden that the empty schema leaves on it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('resource scheduling assignments'), and a clear scope ('across projects or filtered by user/project'). It implicitly differentiates from siblings like rm_get_assignment (single fetch) and rm_create/update/delete_assignment (mutations), but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts with the related rm_get_assignment or rm_list_assignment_subtasks, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The clause 'across projects or filtered by user/project' implies the primary usage context: call this to get a cross-project listing, optionally narrowed by user or project. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no named alternative (e.g., 'use rm_get_assignment for a single assignment'), and no statement about whether filters combine or about default listing behavior. This is implied usage, not explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the project scope and does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The phrase 'associated with or assigned to' could be more precise, but overall it is appropriately sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is straightforward and the presence of an output schema plus read-only annotations reduces the need to describe return values and safety. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage guidance leave notable gaps. It is minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 compensate. It only reinforces that project_id scopes the query; it never explains page/per_page pagination behavior, accepted formats, or defaults. The property names are partially self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal parameter-level value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('List') and resource ('users... for a specific project'), making the core function unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling rm_list_users by project scoping, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_list_users or rm_get_user. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditional recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and 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?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent but adds only 'existing' as behavioral context. It does not disclose update semantics such as partial versus full replacement, handling of a missing discipline_id, or permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema and only two required scalar parameters makes this low-complexity, and the return value need not be documented. However, the description leaves parameter meaning, usage selection, and mutation behavior implicit, which is only minimally viable for a definition.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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, but it does not mention discipline_id or name at all. An agent gets no additional meaning beyond the raw types and titles in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the verb 'Update' with the specific resource 'an existing discipline,' which clearly identifies the operation among the discipline CRUD siblings (create, list, delete). It distinguishes this tool from rm_create_discipline and rm_delete_discipline without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'existing' implies the tool is for modifying an already-created discipline rather than creating or deleting one, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over the sibling create/delete tools. The guidance is only implied, with no exclusions or alternative-selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the operation creates a new project, which narrows the mutation type, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like duplicate-name behavior, required permissions, or how defaults like project_type and project_state are applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy, and every word earns its place. It is not bloated, though it is under-specified in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter create tool, this description is far too thin. It omits parameter semantics, usage constraints, and behavioral context, and does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself is not sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 10 parameters, yet the description provides no parameter information at all. It does not explain ambiguous fields such as budget_type, project_type, project_state, or client_id, leaving the agent without meaningful guidance for invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: creates a new project in Smartsheet RM. This clearly differentiates it from the many other rm_create_* tools and from rm_update_project or rm_delete_project.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for creating a new project, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as rm_update_project, rm_clone_project_schedule, or rm_create_project_phase. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description ('Get details') is fully consistent with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so there is no contradiction. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide — nothing about error behavior, auth needs, or return scope. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but not enriched.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One six-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb. Every word earns its place. It is not scored a 5 because it borders on under-specification, but for pure conciseness it is well-constructed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool, the combination of the minimal description, a required assignment_id in the schema, read-only annotations, and an output schema covers the essential contract. Gaps remain: no mention of error responses for invalid IDs, no hint that the ID typically comes from rm_list_assignments, and no clarification of the dual-type parameter. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for parameter meaning. 'Specific assignment' only loosely implies that assignment_id identifies the target resource; it does not explain the integer-or-string flexibility, valid values, or error outcomes. The burden falls on the description and it fails to meet it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('details for a specific assignment'). The word 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling rm_list_assignments, which would return many. It does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The use case is implied: an agent would call this when it has a particular assignment in mind and needs its details, as opposed to rm_list_assignments for enumeration. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated; the description carries the minimum viable level of implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the list supports filtering, phase inclusion, and pagination, but does not go deeper into behavior like archived defaults, sort semantics, or open-world result implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and readable, though it could carry more useful detail without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no usage guidance, the description is too thin. An agent does not know valid filter fields, how archived behaves, sort options, or when to use this versus sibling listing tools. The output schema helps but does not fill these usage gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions filtering, phase inclusion, and pagination at a high level, but does not explain parameter semantics such as filter_field, filter_value, sort_order, archived, or with_phases.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List'), the resource ('projects in Smartsheet RM'), and key capabilities (filtering, phase inclusion, pagination). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_get_project or rm_list_project_phases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_get_project or rm_list_project_phases. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or suggested use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutating but non-destructive nature is conveyed. The description adds that submission/approval is optional and targeted at a 40h baseline, but it does not disclose side effects like timesheet locking or approval workflow interactions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One tight, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: it names the action, the resources, the default target, and the optional submit/approve behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a compound tool with 4 parameters and 2 required but no schema descriptions, the description under-specifies input semantics: start_date format/meaning, how reconciliation behaves when the target is unmet, and what auto_submit actually triggers. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only touches target_hours via the '(40h)' default. user_id, start_date, and auto_submit semantics are not described, leaving required arguments ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names specific actions ('Audit', 'submit/approve') and resources ('weekly logged hours', 'timesheet'), making the compound intent clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like rm_fill_weekly_timesheet or rm_confirm_suggested_hours, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when weekly hours need auditing and optionally submitting/approving. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving usage boundaries to inference.
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?
Annotations already signal that this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the mutation and listing editable categories; it does not disclose idempotency, partial-update semantics, validation, or archive consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the tool's scope, and it is appropriately concise for what it attempts to convey.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 9-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, this is too thin. It lacks update semantics, required-parameter context, null/default behavior, and guidance for using specific fields. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves significant call-time ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 groups parameters into semantic buckets like metadata, state, dates, budget, and archive status, which maps to most fields, but it leaves project_id implicit and does not clarify distinctions such as budget vs budget_type or expected date formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('project'), and an explicit scope: 'metadata, state, dates, budget or archive status.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_create_project, rm_get_project, and rm_update_project_phase.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus create/delete or project-phase update tools. The update intent is clear, but no when-to-use, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
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?
Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description aligns with that. However, the description adds little behavioral context beyond the word 'Register'—it does not explain side effects, delivery behavior, or any constraints on the webhook subscription.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and resource while using examples to clarify the event_type parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, has an output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description omits guidance on callback URL requirements and the full range of valid event types, so an agent may need to rely on assumptions or external knowledge to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameters. It provides example values for event_type, which is helpful, and the parameter name callback_url is fairly self-explanatory in the context of a webhook subscription. Still, callback_url semantics are not explicitly described, leaving a gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States the specific action 'Register' and resource 'webhook subscription', with concrete event-type examples. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_list_webhooks and rm_delete_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Does not explicitly state when to use this tool rather than alternatives or any prerequisites. The verb 'Register' implies a creation scenario, but no guidance is given about event type validity, callback URL requirements, or cases where listing/deleting webhooks would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly notes that the operation is destructive and requires confirm=True, adding meaningful behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation. This is important because the schema shows confirm defaults to false, so the description clarifies the required flag. It does not describe consequences like cascading deletion, but for a simple delete tool with annotations, this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action and the critical destructive flag. Every word contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive delete tool, the description and annotations together communicate the essential safety requirement (confirm=True). However, it lacks usage context, alternate tool routing, and any detail about what happens after deletion or prerequisites, so an agent has to infer some context from sibling tool names and parameter names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate but only mentions confirm=True. The ID parameters (project_id, assignment_id, subtask_id) are self-explanatory by name, but no format, relationship, or usage details are provided. The confirm parameter receives the only real semantic clarification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly specifies a delete operation on 'assignment subtask,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_delete_assignment. It is concise and uses a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly call out the sibling it differs from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_delete_assignment or rm_delete_holiday. It only states the action itself, leaving the selection context entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds the operation type ('create') beyond annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. However, it provides no additional behavioral context such as duplicate handling, uniqueness, permissions, or external side effects despite openWorldHint=true.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tight sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a one-parameter create operation, though it provides minimal structural elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety profile, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main missing element is a usage hint, but the schema fills in most invocation details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one required 'name' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description only weakly implies that 'name' is the name of the new expense category, but does not explain expected format, constraints, uniqueness, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Create') and a specific resource ('expense category'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like rm_create_expense and rm_create_tag. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_list_expense_categories or rm_delete_expense_category. There is no context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it logs entries for weekdays, optionally weekends, and explains weekend_hours defaulting to daily_hours. However, it does not disclose whether existing entries are overwritten, appended, or rejected, which is important for a batch-writing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by focused parameter notes. It contains no filler, though the parameter section could be expanded without hurting conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter batch-write tool with no schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It omits the meaning of project_id and notes, and does not explain the tool's behavior when timesheet entries already exist for the week. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed, but the call semantics are still under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains start_date, include_weekends, and weekend_hours, and indirectly implies daily_hours, but user_id, project_id, and notes are not semantically described. This leaves key parameters under-explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The first line states a specific action ('Batch-fill weekly timesheet entries'), the exact resource, and the default behavior (Mon-Fri 8h, or 7-day with include_weekends=True). This clearly distinguishes it from singular tools like rm_create_time_entry or rm_list_time_entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the intended use case: filling an entire week of timesheet entries at once. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as rm_create_time_entry, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but it also does not contradict them, and no auth, rate-limit, or side-effect caveats are needed for a simple read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action and target in nine words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter get-by-id tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is nearly adequate, but it leaves the agent to infer when to use it and what exactly 'details' includes. It is missing minimal usage context rather than essential safety or return information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain expense_id, but it only says 'specific logged expense' without mentioning the parameter itself, its format, or how to find it. The parameter name is suggestive but the description adds no real semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific logged expense'), clearly distinguishing it from list/create/update/delete expense siblings. The word 'specific' signals it operates on one expense rather than a collection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided: the description does not state when to choose this over rm_list_expenses or how to obtain the expense_id. The only implicit cue is 'specific,' which is not enough to orient an agent that has many expense-related 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?
The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already establish the safety profile, and the description does not add behavioral context beyond restating that this is a read operation. It discloses no additional traits such as error conditions, availability, or lookup semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential operation efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only getter with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could be slightly stronger by naming rm_list_leave_types as the alternative for multi-record retrieval, but nothing critical is missing for invoking this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it only adds the phrase 'specific leave type', which loosely connects to leave_type_id. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, so this is minimally adequate, though no extra detail about accepted formats or edge cases is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get details' for a 'leave type', and 'specific' signals singular retrieval rather than listing. It does not explicitly differentiate from rm_list_leave_types or other leave-type tools, but the meaning is still unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: this is for retrieving one specific leave type, probably by leave_type_id. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of rm_list_leave_types, nor any mention of exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false align with 'Get details'. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state, such as authentication expectations, error behavior, or what 'details' includes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core operation is immediately visible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that fully cover the safety profile, the description is largely complete for an agent to call this tool. The only real gap is the lack of user_id format guidance, but the schema already exposes the integer/string union.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for the bare user_id parameter. 'For a specific user' adds minimal meaning but does not clarify whether user_id is a numeric ID, a string UUID, an email, or another identifier, despite the schema allowing both integer and string types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get details for a specific user' uses a clear verb and resource, and the qualifier 'specific user' separates it from listing tools like rm_list_users. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools that also focus on a single user, such as rm_get_user_availability or rm_get_user_utilization, leaving 'details' somewhat generic.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when you need the full details for one user rather than a list, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are named, and the agent must infer the boundary between this and other user-specific getters from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the purpose, such as date range handling, period defaults, or data scope. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so return details and read-only behavior are handled. However, the definition leaves the semantics of optional from_date/to_date undefined and does not explain what happens when they are omitted. For a tool with three parameters and no param descriptions, this is a moderate gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 compensate by explaining the parameters. While user_id is self-evidently the target user and from_date/to_date suggest a date range, the description provides no format, default behavior, or inclusion rules for the date parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('billable utilization metrics') scoped to 'a user.' This clearly distinguishes it from similar sibling tools like rm_get_user, rm_get_user_availability, and rm_list_user_bill_rates, which target different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_get_user_availability or rm_list_user_bill_rates. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope that both company and regional holidays are listed, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination, date-range behavior, or response characteristics. With annotations covering mutation safety, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single six-word sentence with no filler. It is fully front-loaded and every word earns its place. No structural wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no required parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, it leaves out whether the optional date parameters are meant to filter the holiday list and when to use this versus single-holiday retrieval, so an agent must infer those details from the schema and sibling names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the optional from_date/to_date parameters at all. The parameter names themselves are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions or date-format semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List company and regional holidays.' It clearly identifies the operation and scope, and its purpose is distinct from sibling tools like rm_create_holiday, rm_update_holiday, and rm_get_holiday.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to choose this list tool over rm_get_holiday for a single holiday, nor does it mention any filtering behavior or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.
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?
The annotations already signal readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations and the tool name already communicate, such as pagination, ordering, or error behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is as concise as a simple list operation should be.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only list with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks context about what 'bill rate tiers' represents and provides no guidance on user_id format, but the output schema likely covers return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It only reuses the concept of 'user' already visible in the property name user_id, providing no extra meaning about accepted formats, requiredness context, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('bill rate tiers'), and a clear scope ('for a user'). This clearly distinguishes it from the related sibling rm_create_user_bill_rate and from other list tools in the set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: if an agent needs to see a user's bill rate tiers, this is the tool. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds organizational scope, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether archived users are excluded by default, or how include_billability affects results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no filler, and the most decision-relevant information (purpose and filters) is front-loaded. It earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only listing tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose reasonably well. However, with six parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves meaning gaps, notably around include_billability and archived behavior, making it minimally viable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description only explains role and discipline filtering. It does not clarify the semantics of page, per_page, archived, or include_billability, leaving agents to infer them from names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('users in the organization'), and specifies the two differentiating filters (role/discipline). This clearly distinguishes it from single-user retrieval (rm_get_user) and user-related subresources (rm_list_user_bill_rates).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description implies it is for organization-wide user listing, but it does not mention that rm_get_user handles single-user detail or that status/bill-rate tools serve different purposes.
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?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=false indicates a write operation, destructiveHint=false indicates non-destructive). However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations already convey. It does not disclose permission requirements, uniqueness constraints on the name, potential side effects on existing records, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and directly states the scope of the update, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with only two required parameters and an output schema available, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given zero schema description coverage, some parameter semantics and behavioral details are missing. The description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps about the identifier format and effects of the update.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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, but it only restates that 'name' is updated. It does not clarify that leave_type_id identifies the target record or that name is the new value. The schema's types are present, but the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Update', a clear resource, 'leave type', and the precise data point, 'name'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_create_leave_type, rm_get_leave_type, and rm_delete_leave_type, which all involve the same resource but different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for renaming a leave type, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools for other leave type modifications. The usage context is self-evident from the tool name and description, but the guidance is implicit rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety traits. It adds that phases, milestones, and assignments are copied, which is useful, but it leaves side effects ambiguous—such as whether the new project is created automatically, whether the source is modified, and how client_id and new_start_date affect the clone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action appears first, and every word contributes meaning—ideal for an agent scanning for the tool's role.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0% schema coverage and four parameters, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of optional parameters and does not clarify whether the target project is created or pre-existing. An output schema covers return values, but the input side remains under-specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation. It does not define source_project_id, target_project_name, client_id, or new_start_date beyond their self-explanatory names; client_id and new_start_date are completely unexplained, leaving the agent guessing at their role in the cloning process.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Duplicate') and a precise resource ('project phases, milestone structure, and assignments') with a clear target ('a new project'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like rm_create_project or rm_create_project_phase, and no other sibling covers cloning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied by the verb 'Duplicate' and the object 'to a new project', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to alternatives such as rm_create_project for creating an empty project. An agent would have to infer when cloning is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the act of creating, such as uniqueness rules, date validation, or side effects, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no padding. Every word serves a purpose and the core action is stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create operation with three parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is incomplete. It does not specify date formatting, the meaning of end_date, or behavior on duplicate holidays, and the output schema only covers return values, not input semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for documenting parameter semantics. It does not explain the expected date format, whether end_date creates a range, or any constraints on name. The parameter names are self-explanatory at a basic level, but key details are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a new company holiday or non-working day'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like rm_update_holiday, rm_delete_holiday, and rm_list_holidays.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The wording implies this is for creating a new holiday, which gives basic usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention related tools such as rm_update_holiday for modifications.
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?
Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, and the description adds no behavioral detail beyond restating the action. It does not disclose uniqueness constraints, duplicate-name handling, permissions, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action immediately and is appropriately sized for a one-parameter create operation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter create operation with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It omits edge-case details like duplicate-name behavior, but the required input and expected result are discoverable from the schema and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the sole 'name' parameter. While the property name is self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation by clarifying required format, uniqueness, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with a clear resource ('leave type'), and the sibling list shows the resource distinction. It is not confused with rm_update_leave_type or rm_delete_leave_type because the operation is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used when a new leave type is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related create tools. The CRUD sibling set makes the primary use case evident, but no alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds mild context by framing the inputs as a 'bill rate tier' with an 'effective date range', but it does not disclose behaviors like overlap handling, precedence between tiers, or open-ended date semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence with no filler. The action is front-loaded, followed directly by the object and scoping qualifiers. Every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The annotations and output schema cover the write safety profile and return shape, and the description conveys the core domain concept. Still, practical invocation details—such as whether missing `end_date` means indefinite and whether overlapping rates are allowed—are absent, leaving the description merely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that `rate` is a bill rate, `start_date` and `end_date` form an effective range, and `user_id` is the target user. However, it omits date formats, the optionality/nullability of `end_date`, and validation semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') with a precise resource ('bill rate tier') and qualifiers ('with an effective date range for a user'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rm_list_user_bill_rates and other create_* tools without needing to open the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions such as overlapping tiers, user existence requirements, or date-range validation. The intended use case is only implied by the verb 'Add'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about the resource type ('unconfirmed scheduled time suggestions') but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or date-range semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and object, making it easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although the tool is simple and annotated as read-only with an output schema, the missing parameter semantics and absent usage guidance create gaps. An agent may not know what the date filters apply to or when this tool is the right choice, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description bears the burden of explaining parameters, but it only addresses the user dimension ('for a user') and omits the purpose of from_date/to_date. The date parameters' meaning (what they filter on) is not clarified, leaving ambiguity for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies a concrete resource ('unconfirmed scheduled time suggestions for a user'), adding the 'unconfirmed' and 'scheduled time' qualifiers not present in the tool name. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_confirm_suggested_hours and rm_list_time_entries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied by the description: an agent can infer it is for retrieving pending time suggestions before confirmation. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions, so guidance is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description correctly aligns with a mutating but not destructive operation. The description adds the field scope (dates, percent, hours) but does not clarify important update semantics, such as whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset, or how the nullable schema defaults behave. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, the description provides some added value but not rich 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence containing only essential information. Every word contributes to stating the action, target, and scope, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given seven parameters and zero schema descriptions, this description is far too thin to give an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It omits update semantics, parameter constraints, and any explanation of how the nullable defaults interact with an existing assignment. The output schema exists, so return-value details are less critical, but the input side is insufficiently specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for the undocumented parameters. It mentions dates, allocation percentage, and hours, but these terms add little beyond the schema property titles ('Start Date', 'End Date', 'Percent', 'Fixed Hours', 'Hours Per Day'). It does not explain the relationship between fixed_hours and hours_per_day, the meaning of note, or any value constraints, leaving significant semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('an existing assignment'), and enumerates the updatable attributes (dates, allocation percentage, hours). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like rm_create_assignment, rm_get_assignment, and rm_delete_assignment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'on an existing assignment' implies this tool is for modifying existing records rather than creating or deleting them, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no direct guidance about using rm_create_assignment for new assignments or rm_delete_assignment for removals, leaving the context only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals a destructive operation, and readOnlyHint=false supports that. The description adds the specific requirement that confirm must be true, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose details such as what happens to associated data or whether deletion is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and includes the critical safety note about confirm=True. There is no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers the essential safety requirement. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when deletion is appropriate) and does not elaborate on the placeholder_id semantics. Still, the core information needed to call the tool correctly is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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, but it only mentions confirm=True and never explains placeholder_id. The parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema's field names and types. The confirm requirement is the sole added semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('placeholder resource'), making the action unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like rm_create_placeholder_resource and rm_list_placeholder_resources by naming the delete operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this when you need to delete a placeholder resource. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is clear enough that an agent can infer when it applies. No guidance about when not to use it is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds minimal behavioral context by indicating this is a single-holiday lookup, but it does not disclose behaviors like not-found handling or whether the holiday_id must come from a prior list call. With complete annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and target resource clearly without repeating the schema or annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for invocation. However, it lacks guidance on where holiday_id comes from and how this relates to the sibling list tool, leaving minor but real gaps in an agent's full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for documenting holiday_id. It does not explain how to obtain a valid holiday_id or clarify the integer/string ambiguity beyond what the schema already shows. The parameter name is self-evident, but the description adds no real semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get details') and a clear resource ('a specific holiday'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_list_holidays, rm_create_holiday, rm_update_holiday, and rm_delete_holiday. An agent can immediately tell this is the single-record retrieval endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'a specific holiday' implies this should be used for single-record lookups rather than listing holidays, but it never explicitly says when to use this versus rm_list_holidays. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the guidance is mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. The description adds the constrained set of status values, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like overwriting the previous status or any permission requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and allowed values with no filler or repeated schema information. It is compact and immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple setter, the description covers the core purpose and status vocabulary, and an output schema exists so return behavior need not be explained. However, it is incomplete regarding the semantics of 'user_id' and 'notes', and it does not point to rm_list_status_options as a way to discover valid status values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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, but it only explains the 'status' parameter by listing valid values. It does not explain what 'user_id' refers to or what 'notes' means, leaving two of three parameters semantically under-specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('current working status for a user') and enumerates the exact allowed status values ('ITO', 'WFH', 'SIC', 'OOO', 'VAC', 'OOF'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_get_user_statuses and rm_list_status_options.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when the agent needs to change a user's current working status, and the listed statuses give some context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as rm_get_user_statuses for reading statuses or rm_list_status_options for available options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description is consistent with them — no contradiction. The description adds domain constraints (valid field_type and target_type values) but discloses no behavioral traits such as duplicate-name handling, uniqueness enforcement, or what happens to existing data after a definition is created.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the action verb and resource come first, and the parenthetical packs the enumerations compactly. Every word earns its place at roughly 20 words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema covers return values and annotations cover mutation safety, so those needs are met. But the description omits the critical linkage between field_type='select' and the options parameter, which an agent could easily get wrong by passing null. For a simple 4-param tool, this is the one material gap preventing full self-sufficiency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and no parameter has enums, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers the highest-value missing information: exact valid values for the two required string parameters. However, the meaning of 'options' (presumably the choice list for a select field) is never explained, leaving one of four parameters ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Create a custom field definition' — with a parenthetical enumerating the allowed field_type values (text, number, select, date) and target_type values (Project, User, Phase). This clearly distinguishes it from the ~15 create siblings (rm_create_tag, rm_create_project, etc.) and from rm_set_custom_field_values, which populates values rather than defining fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It never names alternatives such as rm_update_custom_field for modifying existing definitions or rm_set_custom_field_values for filling in values, and it states no prerequisites. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool's name and the bare purpose statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds meaningful behavioral detail by requiring confirm=True before deletion, which is not obvious from the schema's default value of false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that leads with the action and immediately flags the destructive requirement. The word 'Destructive' is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but the confirm=True requirement earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward deletion tool, the description covers the core destructive behavior and the confirmation requirement. However, it leaves parameter semantics and usage guidance largely to inference, which is a notable gap even though an output schema exists.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only clarifies the confirm parameter; project_id and phase_id are left to their names and schema types, with no explanation of their relationship or expected format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('project phase'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_create_project_phase and rm_update_project_phase by explicitly indicating the destructive action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The action is straightforwardly named and described, so an agent can infer when to use it: when a project phase needs to be removed. However, it gives no explicit guidance about alternatives, prerequisites, or cases where deletion should be avoided, leaving usage context mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the target is the definition rather than field values, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behaviors like error handling or authentication. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action and resource efficiently, which is appropriate for a simple one-parameter read tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter read operation with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It omits an explicit 'by ID' but the parameter name and schema bridge that gap. No major required context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 mention the custom_field_id parameter at all. With a single required parameter, the description should at least indicate that it identifies the field by ID; it does not, leaving the agent to infer semantics solely from the schema title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (custom field definition) plus scope (details), clearly distinguishing it from listing siblings like rm_list_custom_fields. It conveys that the tool returns a single definition rather than a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Usage is implied—call this when you need a single custom field definition—but it does not name the alternative rm_list_custom_fields or state when to prefer that listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description aligns with the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations and does not contradict them. It adds no behavioral detail beyond those annotations, such as return shape, permission needs, or error cases, though the annotations already cover the 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The verb and target resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, the read-only annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. It leaves alternative routing and parameter-relationship details implicit, but these are minor for a simple getter that requires exactly two IDs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the bare parameters, but it does not explain project_id or phase_id. The parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory, yet the description adds no meaning about their relationship, accepted formats, or why both are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('project phase'), and singular granularity ('a specific project phase'). This distinguishes it from collection siblings like rm_list_project_phases and mutation siblings like rm_create_project_phase or rm_delete_project_phase.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The wording implies use when a single phase's details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer rm_list_project_phases for enumerating phases or when not to use this tool. Alternatives are left to inference rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful fact that this returns historical statuses and enumerates the status vocabulary, but it does not clarify whether the history is date-bounded or paginated. No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One clean, front-loaded sentence states the action, the resource, the scoping, and the domain vocabulary. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly clearer about what 'history' includes (e.g., whether current status is included or if a date range is implicit), but this is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides a single 'user_id' parameter with integer or string type and 0% description coverage. The description adds only 'for a specific user,' which minimally indicates the parameter's role but does not explain how to obtain the ID, which ID format is expected, or any other constraints. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the absent schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the resource ('work status history for a specific user'), and it lists the status values (ITO, WFH, SIC, OOO, VAC, OOF). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rm_get_user_availability and rm_set_user_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'history for a specific user' implies this is the read-only counterpart to status-changing tools, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no direct routing guidance to or away from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about submitted approvals and organization-wide scope, which is consistent with the annotations, but it does not clarify whether all approval statuses are included or how pagination behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, well-structured sentence that states action, resource, and scope with no wasted words. It is immediately understandable and front-loads the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, read-only list operation with output schema present and safe annotations, the description is mostly complete. Minor gaps remain, such as not clarifying what 'submitted' means in terms of approval statuses and not explaining pagination behavior, but these do not undermine the overall usability.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage for page and per_page, and the tool description does not mention pagination at all. With two parameters and no schema-level descriptions, the description should compensate but instead provides no parameter semantics beyond the schema's names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource ('submitted time entry and expense approvals'), and scopes it ('across the organization'). This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like rm_list_expenses, which list raw expenses, and rm_create_approval, which creates approvals.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is the right choice when an agent needs an org-wide view of approval items, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name any alternative. Pagination usage is also left to schema defaults rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the project-scoping already visible in the schema, and it does not disclose extra behaviors such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with an active verb and no filler. It communicates the operation clearly and is appropriately front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could be slightly more complete by steering the agent toward rm_get_project_phase for single-phase lookups, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for the undocumented project_id parameter, but it only restates that phases belong to a project. It does not clarify whether project_id is a numeric database ID, an external identifier, or how it should be formatted given the integer/string union.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('phases belonging to a project'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like rm_get_project_phase, which would fetch a single phase, and rm_list_projects, which lists projects rather than phases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'List phases belonging to a project' implies the main use case: retrieve all phases for a given project. However, it does not explicitly describe when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as rm_get_project_phase, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scoping constraint ('across organization or filtered...') but does not mention pagination or the with_suggestions flag behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource, action, and filter options in a way that is immediately usable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a read-only listing tool with an output schema, and it covers the main filter dimensions. It is not fully complete because it omits the meaning of with_suggestions and does not describe pagination behavior, which an agent would need to understand the tool's full invocation surface.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry semantics for parameters. It clarifies that project_id, user_id, from_date, and to_date are filters and specifies the YYYY-MM-DD date format. However, page, per_page, and with_suggestions are left without semantic explanation, leaving a noticeable gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('time entries'), and the available scopes ('across organization' or filtered by project, user, date range'). This distinguishes it from singular siblings like rm_get_time_entry and other list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: whenever a list of time entries is needed, optionally narrowed by project, user, or date range. However, it provides no explicit guidance about alternatives such as rm_get_time_entry for a single entry or report tools like rm_get_report_rows, so routing relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with them. It adds value by disclosing the confirm=True gate, which is essential behavioral context since the default is false. It does not detail what archive entails or whether deletion is permanent, but the destructive annotation covers the core risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no filler; the destructive warning and confirmation requirement are front-loaded. All words earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description conveys the critical invocation requirement (confirm=True). The delete/archive ambiguity and absence of any note about reversibility or permissions are minor given the annotations, so it is mostly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies confirm semantics (must be true). This is genuinely useful beyond the schema's default:false. user_id remains self-explanatory from its name and schema type, so the description provides partial but not complete parameter guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States that the tool deletes or archives a user, naming both the action and the resource. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling user-management tools like rm_create_user and rm_update_user, though the 'delete or archive' disjunction is slightly ambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives an explicit operational constraint: confirm=True is required for the destructive action, which tells the agent how to invoke it safely. It does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over update/disable user flows, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds filter-scope context, but does not mention pagination, date-range behavior, or response characteristics. It is adequate but not richly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the core operation and filtering options are stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with all-optional parameters and an output schema, this may be minimally sufficient, but date-range and pagination semantics are not described. An agent could make a basic call, but nuanced filtering behavior is left to guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 adds meaning for project_id and user_id via 'filtered by project/user,' but page, per_page, from_date, and to_date are left entirely to inference from their names. Compensation is only partial.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('logged expenses'), then states the two operating modes: across all projects or filtered by project/user. This visibly distinguishes it from single-record tools like rm_get_expense and write tools like rm_create_expense.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It clearly communicates when to use the tool: when listing logged expenses, either globally or filtered by project/user. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds the lock/unlock operation and date scoping without contradicting the annotations. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but given the annotation coverage that is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One concise sentence with the action front-loaded and the date format included inline. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple three-parameter tool with annotations covering safety traits and an output schema present, this description is nearly sufficient. It gives the core operation, the date format, and the target user. It does not provide usage alternatives, but that is already addressed under usage guidelines; operationally the definition is complete enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It conveys user_id ('for a user'), lock_date (with format YYYY-MM-DD and 'up to' scope), and the unlock behavior via the verb. However, it does not explicitly document the `unlock` boolean's default false behavior or the accepted user_id types, leaving a notable but not critical gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete verb ('Lock or unlock') and a specific resource ('timesheet records for a user up to a specified lock date'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling timesheet tools like rm_fill_weekly_timesheet or rm_update_time_entry, which target different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the intended use—changing the lock state of a user's timesheet through a date—but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing. An agent can infer the situation from the wording, but the definition doesn't actively steer away from related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds the crucial behavioral requirement that confirm=True must be passed. It also constrains deletion to 'pending' approvals, which provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema and annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource before adding the essential confirm requirement. There is no wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter destructive delete operation with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main invocation requirement and target. It could be slightly richer regarding the consequences of deletion, but nothing critical is missing for basic correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the confirm parameter ('requires confirm=True'). The approval_id parameter is left entirely to the schema's type definition, with no guidance on format, source, or valid values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Delete') and a specific resource ('pending approval record'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling deletion tools like rm_delete_holiday or rm_delete_time_entry. The parenthetical about confirm also adds immediate functional clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear usage prerequisite ('requires confirm=True') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_update_time_approval_status or other approval-related tools. The context is implied but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds a crucial behavioral detail: confirm=True is required to execute the deletion. This goes beyond the schema default and tells the agent what additional step is necessary for the destructive side effect to occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence conveys the action, the destructive nature, and the required confirmation flag. Every word earns its place, with the critical caveat front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation, this description plus the input schema and annotations is sufficient. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, and required parameters are declared in the schema. The only small gap is what happens when confirm=False, but the description's explicit 'requires confirm=True' mitigates that concern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 client_id or contact_id beyond what their names imply. It only addresses confirm's role. While the IDs are self-descriptive, the description does not compensate for the total lack of schema documentation on types, formats, or usage constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('client contact'), making the operation unambiguous. It also sets this apart from sibling tools like rm_create_client_contact and rm_list_client_contacts, so an agent can immediately identify it as the deletion operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys the core context—use this to delete a client contact—and highlights the requirement to pass confirm=True. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., only use this when the contact should be permanently removed, not for updates), so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is established. The description adds a valuable behavioral requirement: 'requires confirm=True'. This goes beyond the schema, which only shows confirm as optional with default false, and is critical for correctly invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most important safety constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter destructive operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential non-obvious behavior: confirmation is required. The webhook_id requirement is visible in the schema, so the description does not need to restate it. It is slightly minimal but sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It only adds meaning to 'confirm' by stating it is required for deletion. It says nothing about 'webhook_id', leaving the agent to infer its role from the schema alone. This is only partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a webhook subscription.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like rm_create_webhook and rm_list_webhooks. The parenthetical about confirmation adds useful operational context without obscuring the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the general use case clear: this is the tool for deleting a webhook. However, it does not explicitly describe when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like finding the webhook_id first via rm_list_webhooks or creating webhooks with rm_create_webhook.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as not-found behavior, authentication requirements, or response handling, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately readable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read-only get tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The only missing context is guidance on how to obtain client_id, but that is minor and discoverable through rm_list_clients.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 client_id beyond referring to 'a specific client.' The parameter name and type are self-evident, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation by adding any real semantic detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific client'), clearly distinguishing this tool from rm_list_clients, rm_create_client, rm_update_client, and rm_delete_client. There is no ambiguity about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies use when a single client's details are needed by ID, which is the correct context. However, it does not explicitly mention using rm_list_clients to discover client IDs or state when an alternative should be preferred, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action, but it does not contradict the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant detail. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list operation, though it adds little beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the zero-parameter input, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering read-only safety, the description is complete enough for a simple list operation. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly noting that it returns definitions rather than values, but the resource name already conveys this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description and schema are fully aligned and nothing is left undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('custom field definitions'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_list_custom_field_values and rm_get_custom_field. The word 'definitions' signals metadata rather than values, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: this is the tool to call when you need custom field definitions. However, it does not explicitly contrast with rm_list_custom_field_values or rm_get_custom_field, so an agent must infer which sibling is the right alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds purpose context but no additional behavioral detail such as pagination limits or result ordering. This is adequate given the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that leads with the action and resource, then briefly states the domain purpose. There is no fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple paginated list with no required parameters and an output schema, this description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit mention of pagination, but the input schema's page/per_page defaults cover that, and the annotations cover read-only behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. The two parameters, page and per_page, are self-explanatory from their names and defaults, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions as required at this coverage level.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('placeholder resources'), and adds the purpose ('forecasting and capacity modeling'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_create_placeholder_resource and rm_delete_placeholder_resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: retrieving placeholder resources for forecasting and capacity modeling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but there is no other list-placeholder-resources sibling, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and not read-only, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds value by explicitly warning that the deletion requires confirm=True, which alerts the agent to a mandatory safety gate beyond the basic destructive hint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and immediately communicates the destructive nature and the confirmation requirement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool, the description, schema, and annotations together provide enough context: the target is clear, the destructive flag is present, and confirm behavior is stated. The only minor gap is no explicit mention of what happens if confirm is false, but the schema default makes that inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 clarifies that confirm=True is required for the destructive action, which is not stated in the schema. However, it does not explain assignment_id beyond its name, leaving some semantic weight to the schema field.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('resource assignment'), and adds a critical caution that the operation is destructive. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like rm_update_assignment, rm_get_assignment, and rm_delete_assignment_subtask.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a resource assignment needs to be removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give exclusion criteria, but the included confirm=True requirement is a useful prerequisite for executing the deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Destructive' while adding the crucial safety requirement that confirm=True is required. This goes beyond the structured data and gives the agent a clear guardrail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the critical confirmation requirement is included as a parenthetical that earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward destructive delete with annotations covering read-only/destructive status and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It could mention cascading effects on related client contacts, but that is not essential for calling the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 adds real value for the confirm parameter by explicitly requiring confirm=True. The client_id parameter's purpose is inferable from 'client record', but no additional format or edge-case guidance is provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a client record'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_delete_client_contact or rm_update_client, and the destructive nature is stated up front.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when a client record needs to be deleted, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives such as soft-delete or deleting related client contacts first. The guidance is adequate but relies on inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already include destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this by labeling the operation as Destructive. It adds value beyond the annotations by explicitly requiring confirm=True before deletion occurs. It also clarifies that the operation targets the field definition itself, not custom field values.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with the most important safety information front-loaded in parentheses. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter destructive delete with a confirm gate and an output schema present, the description covers the essential invocation requirement. It could also mention consequences of deleting a custom field that is already in use or whether the operation is reversible, but the core information needed to call the tool safely is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 does clarify the confirm parameter's role by requiring confirm=True. The custom_field_id parameter is only implied by the phrase 'custom field definition', but its meaning is reasonably inferable from the schema title and the delete context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a custom field definition'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling delete tools because it names the exact target object. The destructive warning adds scoping clarity without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear invocation prerequisite: 'requires confirm=True'. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like rm_update_custom_field or how to discover the custom_field_id via list/get tools. Usage context is implied by the delete verb rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the core destructive nature is covered. The description adds the critical requirement that confirm must be true, which is not derivable from the schema alone and prevents an agent from invoking the tool incorrectly. It does not detail consequences like cascading deletes or irreversibility, but the confirm guard plus annotation is solid for this simple delete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with the essential action and the highest-priority constraint. No filler or redundant elaboration. It is front-loaded and immediately actionable, perfect for an AI agent scanning tool definitions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward delete operation with destructiveHint=true and an output schema present, the description covers the key invocation requirement (confirm=True). It lacks details about error conditions, idempotency, or cascading effects, but those are less critical for a simple delete and the annotation already signals danger. Overall, sufficient for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the confirm parameter's essential behavior (must be true), which is valuable. However, it provides no explanation of discipline_id beyond the name, though the parameter is self-explanatory and the schema offers type flexibility. Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' with a clear resource 'discipline', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rm_create_discipline and rm_update_discipline by the action alone. The confirm requirement adds an important qualifier without obscuring the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a discipline must be removed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as rm_update_discipline for modifications or rm_list_disciplines for finding the ID. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already mark the tool as destructive and readOnlyHint=false, so the description credibly adds the key operational detail that confirm must be set to True despite its schema default of false. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent avoid an accidental no-op or misuse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, flags destructiveness, and states the required guard. There is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-resource delete, the description covers the main invocation risk (confirm=True) and the annotations cover the destructive nature. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is unnecessary. Minor gaps like preconditions or side effects are not critical enough to lower the score further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 effectively explains the confirm parameter's required value, which is essential, but it does not elaborate on expense_id; while expense_id is self-explanatory, the description leaves some semantic burden to the schema and naming convention.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Delete an expense item'), which clearly distinguishes this from sibling operations like rm_get_expense, rm_create_expense, and rm_update_expense. The destructive caveat further reinforces the action's nature.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implicitly tells the agent this is the deletion operation within the expense CRUD family, and gives a critical invocation requirement ('requires confirm=True'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when deletion should be avoided, so the usage guidance is mostly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a key behavioral requirement beyond the annotations: 'requires confirm=True'. While destructiveHint already signals the destructive nature, the description clarifies that a confirmation flag must be passed. This is valuable operational context for the agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence: 'Delete a project (Destructive: requires confirm=True).' It front-loads the action and packs the most important constraint into a short parenthetical. There is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with two parameters, an output schema, and annotations already indicating destructiveness, this description is nearly complete. The only notable gap is the absence of guidance about when deleting a project is appropriate or what happens if confirm is false, but the core invocation requirements are covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 adds meaning to the confirm parameter by stating it must be true, which is not obvious from the schema default of false. However, it does not add any semantic detail about project_id beyond its name and schema type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a project'. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling delete tools for other resources (e.g., rm_delete_project_phase, rm_delete_client). No ambiguity exists about what this tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you intend to delete a project rather than one of the other deletable resources. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or explain any consequences beyond the destructive nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the critical requirement that confirm=True is mandatory. This goes beyond the annotations by telling the agent the exact safety gate needed to execute the deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the core operation and the essential safety requirement. There is no filler or redundant restatement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete tool with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers the critical invocation details: target role and confirm flag. It does not discuss cascading effects or errors, but those are secondary given the annotations and schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 clarifies that confirm must be true to delete, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean/default. role_id is self-explanatory from the tool name and schema property.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a role'), making the operation unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling create/update role tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a procedural prerequisite ('requires confirm=True') but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives, though no obvious alternative delete tool exists for roles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description reinforces that with 'Destructive' while adding the critical behavioral requirement that confirm=True is necessary. This goes beyond the schema default and tells the agent that simply calling the tool without confirm will not perform the deletion.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that front-loads the core action and immediately warns about the destructive guard. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers the essential safety behavior and the confirm requirement. It does not mention side effects like cascading deletions or whether deletion is reversible, but those are less critical given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 the confirm parameter's role clearly, but tag_id is left with only its name and type from the schema. The description adds partial value but does not fully document the semantics of the required parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the exact action and resource: 'Delete a tag'. It is specific and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like rm_create_tag and rm_list_tags by naming the delete operation on the tag resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when a tag must be deleted. It also gives a key usage condition ('requires confirm=True'), but it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, such as preferring deactivation over deletion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the clarification that subtasks are 'checklist tasks' and discloses no further behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or response scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and every word adds meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, annotations cover the read-only safety profile, and the two required parameters are implied by the description. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of pagination or response shape, but for a simple list tool this is not a significant omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does partially by tying both parameters together: subtasks belong to a project assignment, implying project_id and assignment_id identify that assignment. However, it does not explain the ID formats or how to obtain them, though the parameter names are reasonably self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('subtasks (checklist tasks)') scoped to a project assignment. It clearly differentiates this from the sibling tools rm_create_assignment_subtask and rm_delete_assignment_subtask.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context makes it obvious this is the read operation for assignment subtasks, and the sibling names reinforce that it is the listing counterpart to create/delete. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the client-scoping, such as pagination, ordering, or filtering behavior, so it only meets the baseline.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the action and object, making it immediately scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and readOnly annotation, this description plus the input schema is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It would be slightly richer with an explicit note that the list is scoped to all contacts for the given client, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries some burden for clarifying client_id. It only restates that contacts are associated with a client and does not explain accepted formats or how to resolve the client identifier. However, the single parameter is simple and self-explanatory from its name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('contacts'), and a clear scope ('associated with a client'). This distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like rm_create_client_contact and rm_delete_client_contact.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The read-only verb and scope make the intended use clear: retrieve the contacts for a given client. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to avoid confusing it with the create/delete client-contact siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the operation is read-only ('Get details'), which aligns with the annotations readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. However, it does not add behavioral context beyond what the annotations already communicate, so a baseline score is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and primary input.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-id operation with one parameter, annotations indicating a safe read-only action, and an output schema available, the description covers everything needed to invoke the tool correctly. No crucial information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should ideally compensate. It does clarify that entry_id is the identifier of the time entry, but this largely restates the parameter's name and title. With only one simple parameter, this is minimally sufficient but adds little semantic depth.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('details for a specific time entry'), plus the selection criterion 'by its ID.' This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_list_time_entries, rm_update_time_entry, and rm_delete_time_entry.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by its ID' clearly conveys that this tool is used when the agent already has the entry_id and needs details for a single time entry. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among the sibling time-entry tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the read-only nature is clear. It does not add behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination, ordering, or whether the result is exhaustive, but for a simple zero-parameter list this is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly scoped sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the verb and immediately states the resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. There are no missing preconditions, side effects, or parameter details that an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('configured expense categories'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also differentiates from sibling tools like rm_create_expense_category and rm_delete_expense_category by explicitly indicating a read/list operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intended use is implied: call this tool when you need the set of configured expense categories. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over alternatives, such as rm_list_expenses for expenses or rm_create_expense_category for creating a category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds example values but discloses no additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or access constraints; for a simple list tool this is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that conveys the resource, action, and examples without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless list tool with an output schema and readOnly annotations, this description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool returns and that it is safe to call. The sibling rm_get_leave_type covers the singular case, so no additional context is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. The example leave types add semantic context by showing the expected domain values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('leave types') and provides concrete examples. The plural form clearly differentiates it from the sibling rm_get_leave_type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for enumerating leave types, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this over rm_get_leave_type or how it relates to other list tools. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, though the intent is reasonably inferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'configured organization' as the scoping context, but does not provide extra behavioral details such as pagination or ordering; those are not crucial given the annotations and present output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every word contributes to meaning and the core scope is stated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a parameterless signature, strong read-only annotations, and an output schema that covers results, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and is fully described by its empty properties. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools, and the description makes no conflicting parameter claims.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action (List), a clear resource (configured organization webhooks), and the scope of the operation. It is immediately distinguishable from the creating and deleting webhook siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The verb 'List' establishes a read-only intent, and the sibling names rm_create_webhook and rm_delete_webhook make alternatives obvious, but the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its create/delete counterparts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that confirm=True is mandatory. It does not contradict the annotations, and the extra confirmation requirement adds value beyond the structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with a parenthetical warning is perfectly sized. It front-loads the core action and adds the critical safety requirement without any filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation with a destructive annotation and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It conveys the action, the danger, and the required confirmation flag. It only lacks a pointer to related listing tools or guidance on category_id provenance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate. It meaningfully explains the confirm parameter's role, which the schema alone implies only via default=false. However, category_id is left entirely to the schema and tool name, with no guidance on where to obtain it or what formats are valid.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete an expense category.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rm_delete_expense, rm_delete_tag, and other delete operations. The destructive warning reinforces what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear and essential usage context: deletion is destructive and requires confirm=True. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other delete siblings or mention any preconditions such as whether the category must have no associated expenses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With destructiveHint and readOnlyHint already in annotations, the description appropriately adds the non-obvious guardrail that confirm must be true for deletion to occur. It does not go into irreversibility or cascading effects, but for a two-parameter delete operation the core destructive behavior is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence with a parenthetical carries the action, the destructive warning, and the required guard condition. There is no filler or redundancy, and the critical usage condition is placed immediately after the verb.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete with an output schema and covering annotations, the description plus the schema gives an agent everything necessary to call it correctly: the target, the safety warning, and the confirmation requirement. It is slightly lean on broader consequences, but nothing essential for invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning to the confirm parameter by explicitly stating it must be true, which is not inferable from its default of false. However, it adds nothing about holiday_id beyond its self-evident name, and with 0% schema description coverage the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and object, 'Delete a holiday', which unambiguously identifies the target resource and action. It also marks the operation as Destructive, reinforcing the semantic and distinguishing it from non-destructive holiday tools such as rm_get_holiday and rm_update_holiday.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The statement 'requires confirm=True' gives a concrete precondition for invoking the tool, which is essential because the schema defaults confirm to false. It clearly positions the tool as the delete operation for holidays, though it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or say when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the meaningful guard that confirm must be true, which is not otherwise inferable. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One compact sentence front-loads the action and immediately states the destructive guard. Every word earns its place; no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and only two simple parameters, the description plus schema covers the required call correctly: delete entry_id with confirm=True. A small gap is not describing the failure behavior when confirm is false or omitted, but this is minor given the explicit requirement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds semantic weight to confirm by stating it must be true. entry_id remains only glossed by its name and schema type, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter docs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb 'delete' plus resource 'time entry' identifies exactly what the tool does. It is immediately distinguishable from rm_get_time_entry, rm_create_time_entry, and rm_update_time_entry, so no sibling confusion remains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States the critical precondition 'requires confirm=True' and labels the operation Destructive, giving clear context for when and how to invoke it. It does not name alternatives, but for a deletion tool the operation itself is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'configured' qualifier, which suggests only system-defined disciplines are returned, but it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the result set is exhaustive. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element ('List', 'all', 'configured', 'disciplines') contributes to agent understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, the description is fully sufficient. There are no missing argument details, and the output schema handles return-value documentation. The description tells the agent exactly what the operation does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description has no parameter details to add. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed; the description's focus on the result set is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all configured disciplines' uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('disciplines'), and states the scope ('all'). The sibling tools rm_create_discipline, rm_update_discipline, and rm_delete_discipline make it easy to distinguish this read operation from mutation operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies this is the retrieval counterpart to the discipline mutation tools. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the list-oriented wording and 'all configured disciplines' scope leave little ambiguity; an agent would use this when it needs the full set of disciplines rather than creating, updating, or deleting one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope 'all configured user roles' but does not elaborate on return format, ordering, or pagination. With annotations covering the main behavioral traits, this is adequate but not highly informative.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, short sentence containing no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, and the core action and resource are front-loaded immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only list operation, the description fully specifies what the tool does. The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain return values, and the annotations cover behavioral safety, making the definition complete for agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter expectations.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all configured user roles' uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('all configured user roles'), which unambiguously identifies the operation. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like rm_create_role, rm_update_role, and rm_delete_role, since it is the only role-listing tool among them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies use when the agent needs to enumerate all roles, and there is no competing role-list sibling tool that would require exclusion guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the absence of alternatives makes the intended usage sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds account-level scoping but no further behavioral detail such as pagination, ordering, or output shape; this is adequate for a simple zero-parameter list but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and scope with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description is complete. There are no missing inputs, side effects, or return-value details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on what the list returns rather than inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('account-level assignment work status options'). This is distinct from sibling tools such as rm_get_user_statuses, which concerns different statuses, and provides enough specificity for an agent to identify the correct tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for retrieving account-level assignment work status options, giving sufficient context for when to select it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds the essential behavioral detail that confirm=True is required for deletion to proceed. It does not discuss irreversibility or side effects, but the destructive annotation combined with the explicit warning covers the key safety concern.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with the action and resource stated first, followed by a concise parenthetical caveat. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter delete operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential confirmation requirement and destructive nature. Return values are already addressed by the output schema, so nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that confirm must be true to execute the delete, going beyond the schema's default false. It does not explicitly describe leave_type_id, but the parameter name and tool context make its role obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a leave type'), making the operation unmistakable. It distinguishes itself from the many sibling delete tools by naming the exact resource. The parenthetical does not obscure the purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies use when deleting a leave type, and the 'requires confirm=True' condition provides an important invocation requirement. Since no sibling tool performs the same operation, explicit exclusions are unnecessary, though it does not elaborate on when deletion should be avoided or what prerequisites exist beyond confirmation.
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

mcp-server-smartsheet-rm MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-smartsheet-rm MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christianclaudio/mcp-server-smartsheet-rm/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christianclaudio/mcp-server-smartsheet-rm)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server-smartsheet-rm MCP server – quality and maintenance score on Glama](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christianclaudio/mcp-server-smartsheet-rm/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/christianclaudio/mcp-server-smartsheet-rm)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/christianclaudio/mcp-server-smartsheet-rm'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server