Redmine MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.1.4
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools follow a clear resource-action pattern (e.g., createIssue, updateIssue, deleteIssue) that makes their purposes distinct. However, there is some potential confusion between addRelatedIssue and createIssueRelation, as both deal with issue relationships, and getVersions appears to be mis-named (listed as 'Show version' but plural), which could cause misselection.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority of tools use a consistent camelCase verb-first pattern (get, create, update, delete, add, remove, upload, download) followed by a resource name (e.g., deleteProject, getUsers). Minor deviations include getNewsList and getNewsListByProject instead of getNews for listing, and getVersionsByProject vs getVersions, which breaks the plural/singular consistency but is still readable.
Tool Count1/5
With 90 tools, this server has an extreme abundance of operations, far exceeding the 50+ threshold for mismatch. While the scope is broad (Redmine's many resources), the sheer number makes the tool set unwieldy and hard to navigate, and many tools are trivial enumerations (e.g., getIssueStatuses, getTrackers).
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of Redmine resources with CRUD operations for issues, projects, users, time entries, news, versions, wiki pages, attachments, categories, groups, etc. Minor gaps exist, such as no deleteFile for files and no create/update/delete for queries, but these are not critical for typical workflows.
Average 2.1/5 across 90 of 90 tools scored. Lowest: 1.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description reveals nothing about potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the nature of results. The one-word description carries no behavioral information.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single word does not earn its place as it provides no utility to the agent.
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?
Given the tool has a complex nested schema with many search options and no output schema, a one-word description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine correct usage or expected results.
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 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to parameters. Many parameters exist (limit, offset, scope, q), but their purpose, constraints, and interactions are entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, what scenarios it is suited for, or any alternatives. The description is entirely absent of usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Add watcher'. It does not mention that this is a write operation, whether it requires specific permissions, what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. The agent has no information about the tool's behavior beyond the inferred action.
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 extremely short at two words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not contain enough information to be useful. While there is no wasted verbiage, the description fails to convey even the fundamental purpose or scope of the tool.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and any descriptive text, the tool is entirely contextless. The presence of nested path and body parameters with required fields suggests a non-trivial operation, but the description provides no explanation of how the parameters relate or what the tool accomplishes. It is completely inadequate for an agent to use 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not mention `user_id`, `issueId`, or `format` at all. The nested structure and required fields are only visible in the schema, and the description provides no additional meaning or context for these parameters.
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 'Add watcher' restates the tool name in plain language but does not specify what resource the watcher is added to or what 'watcher' means in this context. It could be adding a user as a watcher to an issue, a project, or something else, so it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like addUserToGroup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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 removeWatcher or other user-related operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or why an agent would choose this tool over similar ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'Delete' without mentioning side effects, permanence, required permissions, or any irreversible consequences.
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 extremely brief, but brevity here results in under-specification rather than effective conciseness. While it is front-loaded, it lacks substantive content and does not earn its place beyond echoing the tool name.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. The description does not explain what happens upon deletion, how to provide inputs, or what the agent should expect as a response.
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 a nested pathParams object with required 'format' and 'membershipId' fields, but the description provides no explanation of these parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds no value.
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 'Delete membership' merely restates the tool name 'deleteMembership' with spaces, adding no new information. It does not specify the nature of membership, the scope of deletion, or any outcome beyond the obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, when not to use it, or how it relates to alternatives like createMembership, getMembership, or updateMembership. It provides no context or prerequisites.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, return format, authorization requirements, or any other behavioral characteristic beyond the implied action.
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?
While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. Two words do not provide enough information for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has a nested object parameter, no annotations, no output schema, and no description of return values. The description is wholly inadequate for understanding the tool's purpose, parameters, or behavior in context.
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%. The description does not explain the pathParams object, the required 'format' enum (json/xml), or the 'roleId' field. It adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already lists.
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 'Show role' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'getRole'. It states a verb and resource but provides no scope, ID, or distinguishing details, making it vague and insufficient to differentiate from sibling tools like 'getRoles'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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, no context about typical use cases, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals nothing about whether this is a read operation, required authentication, or what the response contains.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every word is vague and adds no operational value.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague one-sentence description, the tool is impossible to use correctly without external knowledge. The nested parameter structure only increases the need for explanation.
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 0% description coverage and the description names no parameters. The nested pathParams (format and versionId) are left entirely unexplained, so the agent has no semantic clues beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
'Show version' is a tautology that restates the tool name without specifying what resource the version belongs to. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like getVersionsByProject or getWikiPageByVersion.
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. There is no mention of 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'Add related issue' without indicating whether this creates a persistent relation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it is idempotent, or what happens to existing relations. The absence of any behavioral detail makes this tool opaque.
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 under-specified rather than concise. While it is short, it omits essential information about the tool's purpose and parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to select or invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, required path and body params), the lack of annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the domain concept of 'related issue', the return value, or any side effects, leaving major gaps for an AI agent.
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 any parameter. The schema shows required pathParams (format, projectId, repositoryId, revision) and bodyParams (issue_id), but the description adds no meaning about what these parameters represent or how they relate to the operation.
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 'Add related issue' states an action and object, but it is too vague to explain what 'related issue' means in this context. It does not mention that it links an issue to a repository revision (as the path parameters suggest), nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like createIssueRelation or removeRelatedIssue.
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 createIssueRelation or removeRelatedIssue. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Create file' provides none. It fails to mention that this is a mutation, what side effects occur, whether auth/token is needed, or what the response looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
'Create file' is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It has no filler but also no substance; a description consisting solely of the tool's name does not earn its place as a useful functional explanation.
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?
For a tool with nested objects, required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It leaves the agent without critical information about invocation, parameter meanings, return values, or behavior, making the tool nearly unusable from the description alone.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters (pathParams, bodyParams, file.token, etc.). The nested structure and required fields are left entirely unexplained by the text, making it impossible for the agent to understand parameter semantics beyond raw names.
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 'Create file' is a tautology of the tool name, restating the name without adding scope, method, or context. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling file-related tools such as uploadAttachment or getFiles.
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 intended use cases, prerequisites, or any exclusions among the many sibling tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the creation action and says nothing about side effects, required permissions, possible errors, or the shape of the created relation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, which is not conciseness but under-specification. It wastes the opportunity to add value and offers no structure beyond a single sentence that repeats the tool name.
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?
Given the tool's nested parameters (pathParams and bodyParams), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of the issueId path parameter, the meaning of the relation object, or any usage context, making it minimally usable.
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 what parameters mean. It adds no parameter information whatsoever, leaving the agent to rely solely on the raw schema, which is not documented in prose.
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 'Create issue relation' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'createIssueRelation' in natural language. It provides no additional specificity about scope or how it differs from sibling tools like addRelatedIssue or getIssueRelations.
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. It does not mention the need to specify issue_to_id and relation_type, nor any prerequisites like existing issues, and it never refers to sibling relation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or return values. It discloses none of these, leaving the agent completely uninformed.
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 extremely short but under-specified. It is not structured or informative; it is a fragment that fails to earn its place beyond restating the name.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, required parameters, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what a membership is, how it relates to projects/users, or what the response contains.
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 adds nothing about the parameters. The schema itself has no descriptions, so both schema and description fail to explain the meaning of user_id, role_ids, format, or projectId.
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 'Create membership' merely restates the tool name 'createMembership', adding no specificity or context. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like updateMembership or deleteMembership beyond the verb.
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. No mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is silent on usage context.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to do so. 'Create news' only repeats the tool name and implies creation, without mentioning side effects, required permissions, return values, or potential errors. This is nearly as opaque as the 'Process' placeholder, providing zero behavioral insight.
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 extremely terse—only two words—which is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there is no substance. The lack of detail makes it nearly useless, similar to a placeholder.
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?
Given the tool has a nested schema with required parameters (format, projectId, news) and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning of the format parameter, the role of projectId, or the required structure of the news object. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool with such insufficient context.
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 0% description coverage, and the description mentions no parameters. It does not explain pathParams (format, projectId) or bodyParams (the news object structure). While the schema itself is detailed, the description adds no semantic meaning, leaving the agent to infer parameter purpose from names alone.
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 'Create news' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'createNews', providing only a verb and resource noun. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like createProject or createUser, nor does it elaborate on what 'news' specifically entails. This is a tautology rather than a clarifying 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. There is no context to help an agent decide between this and other create operations, such as createIssue or createProject.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, response format, or reversibility. 'Create project' implies a mutation but gives no indication of what happens or what is returned.
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 extremely concise but under-specified. It is a minimal restatement of the tool name, not a well-structured explanation. Conciseness is beneficial only when it conveys necessary information, which this does not.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested project object, format parameter, many sibling operations) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is entirely inadequate. It fails to explain what a project is, what fields are required, or how this relates to other project tools.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters. The complex nested schema for bodyParams and pathParams is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on required fields like name and identifier or the format parameter.
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 'Create project' is a tautology of the tool name 'createProject', restating the action without adding any detail. It is clear in verb and resource but provides no additional context or differentiation from siblings beyond the verb itself.
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 like updateProject, deleteProject, or archiveProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Create user' with no mention of side effects, permissions, validation rules, uniqueness constraints, or response behavior, providing essentially zero transparency.
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?
While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The two-word phrase does not constitute a useful description; it fails to provide any of the information an agent needs to select or invoke the tool.
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?
The tool has complex nested parameters (bodyParams.user, pref, custom_fields) and no output schema, yet the description gives no context about request structure, required fields, or return behavior. It is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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 0% description coverage, yet the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain login, password, mail, pref, or required fields, forcing the agent to guess semantics solely from property names.
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 'Create user' exactly restates the tool name, providing no additional detail about what 'create' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like updateUser or getUsers. It is a tautology, not a substantive 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of related operations. It is a bare one-line phrase with no contextual advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Delete project' with no disclosure of destructive/irreversible effects, cascading deletions, permissions, or associated data impact.
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?
At two words, the description is minimal but not usefully concise—it restates the tool name without adding structure or detail. Under-specification is penalized here, not rewarded, as it fails to communicate necessary context.
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?
Given a destructive operation with a nested parameter object and no annotations or output schema, a two-word description is grossly inadequate. It lacks effects, return behavior, authorization requirements, or parameter meaning.
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%; the nested pathParams object with format and projectId is entirely undocumented in the description. The description does not explain these parameters or the format enum's role.
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 'Delete project' merely restates the tool name (deleteProject) and provides no additional detail. It does not differentiate from sibling project lifecycle tools like closeProject or archiveProject, and lacks any nuance about scope or permanence.
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 archiveProject, closeProject, or deleteUser. There is no mention of prerequisites, workflow, or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it is completely silent. It does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related entities, whether special permissions are required, or any other consequences of the operation.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than concise quality. Every word simply duplicates the tool name, leaving no room for needed context.
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?
Given that this is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot safely or accurately invoke this tool without additional external knowledge.
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. The sole parameter pathParams with required nested properties (format, userId) is not explained at all. An agent has no help understanding that format controls response type and userId identifies the target user.
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 'Delete user' is a direct restatement of the tool name, adding no new information. It clearly names the action and resource but fails to distinguish this delete operation from similar sibling tools (e.g., deleteProject, deleteIssue) or clarify the exact scope of 'user' deletion.
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, prerequisites (e.g., permissions or user state), or when to prefer alternatives (e.g., deactivating a user or removing group membership). It neither states exclusions nor names alternative tools.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete version', which reveals nothing about irreversibility, permissions, cascading effects, or other important aspects of a destructive operation. This is equivalent to the low-scoring 'process' example.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits almost all useful information, so the brevity does not serve the user or agent.
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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It lacks any mention of consequences, error conditions, or related resources, leaving the agent without essential context to invoke 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 says nothing about the parameters. While the schema indicates a 'versionId' and 'format', their meaning and usage are left entirely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of semantic context.
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 'Delete version' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'deleteVersion', providing no additional specificity or scope. It is a tautology rather than a clear, informative statement of 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 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, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from sibling delete tools (e.g., deleteProject, deleteIssue). The description is too sparse to convey any usage context.
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?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Show attachment.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, returns a specific format, or has side effects. This is a major gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It omits essential details while providing no useful structure; every word fails to add value beyond the tool name.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, and a nested parameter object, the description gives almost no context. It does not state what the tool returns, how to interpret the response, or any prerequisites, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke it 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 adds no parameter information. It does not explain that pathParams contains format and attachmentId, nor what values they expect or how they affect the result.
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 'Show attachment' names a resource and a verb, but 'show' is ambiguous—it does not specify whether it retrieves metadata, content, or a thumbnail. It also fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like downloadAttachmentToLocalFile or getIssueStatuses.
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. The sibling list includes many attachment-related tools (updateAttachment, deleteAttachment, downloadAttachmentToLocalFile, etc.), but the description gives no context for choosing this one.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers none. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether pagination exists, or any side effects, resulting in zero transparency.
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 technically brief but is under-specified rather than concise. Two words do not provide sufficient structure or information, so it does not earn its place as a helpful tool definition.
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?
Given the nested parameter structure, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks essential context about the listing scope, response format, or any constraints, making it wholly inadequate for a tool with this complexity.
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 adds no meaning about the required pathParams (format and projectId). It fails to explain how format affects output or why projectId is needed, leaving the agent with only the schema's bare property names.
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 'List files' simply restates the tool name 'getFiles' with no additional specificity. It provides a verb+resource but lacks any distinction from other file-related operations like createFile or downloadAttachment, making it essentially a tautology.
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 getProjects or getIssues. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate scenario.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses nothing. It does not mention that this is a read operation, what parameters are required, or any side effects or response characteristics. This is a substantial gap for a tool with a nested schema.
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 extremely short, which is structurally concise, but it is under-specified. 'Show group' is a terse restatement of the name and does not use the limited space to convey meaningful information. It fails the test of every sentence earning its place.
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?
Given the tool's nested parameters, enums, and the lack of an output schema, the description is profoundly incomplete. It does not explain how to identify a group, what the include query parameter does, or what the response will contain, making the tool effectively unusable based on the description alone.
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 provides no explanation of the parameters (format, groupId, include). It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive text, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to supply or what the parameters mean.
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 'Show group' essentially restates the tool name 'getGroup' without adding specific detail. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tool 'getGroups' (which presumably lists groups), nor does it clarify what 'show' encompasses.
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 this retrieves a single group by ID, nor does it advise using getGroups for listing all groups. The description offers no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Show issue' merely indicates a read operation already implied by the name, and omits any details about authentication, error handling, or response format. It adds no value beyond the structured data.
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 extremely brief, but this is under-specification rather than valuable conciseness. Two words provide no meaningful information, so they do not earn their place.
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?
Given a tool with nested schema, required query params, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-word description is grossly inadequate. The agent receives no information about what 'showing' an issue entails, what parameters affect behavior, or what the return structure is.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description lists no parameters or their meanings. Although the schema itself contains enums and nested fields, the description provides no compensation, leaving the agent to infer semantics from parameter names alone.
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 'Show issue' essentially restates the tool name 'getIssue' with a synonym (show vs get), providing no additional specificity about scope, return value, or how it differs from the sibling 'getIssues'. It's a near-tautology that relies entirely on the name for meaning.
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 for when to use this tool vs alternatives such as getIssues or getIssueRelations. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what response format to expect, or any 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words) and contains no fluff, but it is under-specified. It is not appropriately sized because it omits necessary context.
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?
Given the tool has a nested parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too incomplete. It does not explain what 'my account' contains, how the format parameter affects the result, or what the agent should expect.
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 one parameter 'format' with enum ['json', 'xml'], but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the format parameter or explain how it affects the response, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 'Show my account' is essentially a restatement of the tool name getMyAccount. It indicates the action and resource but adds no new information, so it borders on tautology.
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 like getCurrentUser or updateMyAccount. The description does not provide usage context or exclusions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of conveying behavioral traits. 'Show news' gives no indication of read-only behavior, required permissions, output format, pagination, or error semantics. The tool could be interpreted as a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated.
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 extremely short ('Show news'), which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not provide necessary details about the tool's operation or parameters, so the brevity is not value-adding.
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?
The tool has a nested object schema with required parameters and no output schema, so the description must compensate for this complexity. 'Show news' is completely inadequate: it fails to explain the news ID requirement, the format option, the include query parameter, or any expected response.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema defines pathParams with format and newsId, and queryParams with include, but the description does not explain their purpose or acceptable values, leaving the agent with only raw schema structure and no semantic context.
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 'Show news' merely restates the tool name 'getNews' without specifying the resource scope, action detail, or differentiation from sibling tools like getNewsList and getNewsListByProject. It does not indicate that this tool retrieves a single news item by ID or supports format/include options.
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. The description does not mention that getNews likely fetches a single news item by ID, nor does it reference getNewsList or getNewsListByProject for broader queries.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show project' does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, whether authentication is required, or any side effects. It offers zero transparency.
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 extremely short but this is under-specification, not conciseness. A single vague phrase like 'Show project' does not earn its place because it conveys no useful information beyond the tool name.
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?
Given the tool has nested required parameters (format, projectId), an optional include query, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to address what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any behavioral constraints.
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. It fails to explain the purpose of pathParams (format, projectId) or queryParams (include), leaving the agent without any semantic guidance for constructing valid requests.
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 'Show project' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'getProject'. It uses a generic verb ('show') and a generic resource ('project') with no additional scope or details, and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'getProjects' or 'getIssue'.
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 that 'getProjects' lists all projects or that this tool retrieves a single project by ID, nor does it state any prerequisites or exceptions.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Show time entry' discloses nothing about read-only behavior, permissions, return format, or side effects. It is behaviorally opaque.
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?
At three words, the description is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not 'earn its place' because it conveys almost no information.
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?
This is a single-fetch tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented nested parameters. The description is wholly inadequate for understanding its behavior or usage context.
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%; parameters (pathParams.format, pathParams.timeEntryId) are not explained. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's property names, leaving the agent without adequate information to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Description 'Show time entry' restates the tool name 'getTimeEntry' with a synonym (get/show), providing no additional specificity about the singular time entry or how it differs from getTimeEntries. It is essentially a tautology.
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 alternatives like getTimeEntries for list operations or createTimeEntry for creation. The description provides no 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects (e.g., changing project status), permissions needed, reversibility, or any operational details. The description adds nothing beyond the tool 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 description is extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and substance, providing no value beyond what the name already conveys.
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?
The tool has a nested parameter object, no annotations, and no output schema. The description is completely inadequate to guide an agent on invocation, expected behavior, or return values. It is one of the least complete descriptions possible.
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 input schema defines a pathParams object with required format and projectId, but the description does not explain these parameters or their purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, and it completely fails to do so.
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 'Reopen project' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'reopenProject'. It provides no additional context about what reopening entails, how it differs from close/archive/unarchive, or any scope. This is a tautology, scoring 2 on the rubric.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like unarchiveProject, updateProject, or closeProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, status requirements, or alternative tools. It provides no usage context at all.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or state changes. The tool's mutating nature (unarchiving) is only implied by the name, not clarified by the description.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It repeats the tool name and provides no useful content, so it does not earn its place. A useful description would clarify behavior and parameters while remaining brief.
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?
For a tool with a nested parameter object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the format and projectId parameters, expected outcomes, or any operational context, making it inadequate for effective tool 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 the description mentions no parameters. The input schema defines pathParams with format and projectId, but the description adds no meaning or guidance on how these parameters should be used. The agent is left to infer everything from the schema alone.
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 'Unarchive project' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'unarchiveProject', providing no additional clarity or distinguishing information. It is a tautology rather than a meaningful explanation of the tool's function.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as archiveProject, reopenProject, or closeProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without sufficient direction for tool selection.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update group' with no mention of side effects, permissions, partial vs. full update behavior, or response format. This is nearly zero transparency.
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 extremely concise (two words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It simply repeats the tool name and does not earn its place by adding value.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested bodyParams, multiple updatable fields, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what fields can be updated, how the update is performed, or what the result looks like, which is inadequate for reliable tool 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 the description adds no information about the parameters. The schema reveals two required params (pathParams, bodyParams) with nested fields, but the description offers no meaning or usage hints, leaving the agent to infer everything from raw types.
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 'Update group' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'updateGroup' with no additional detail. It names the verb and resource but does not distinguish this from sibling tools like createGroup, deleteGroup, or getGroup.
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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left without context for selecting updateGroup over other group operations.
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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Update issue' reveals nothing about auth requirements, partial update semantics, effect of omitted fields, or return values. It is a bare mutation statement with no additional context.
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?
Two words is not conciseness but under-specification. The description is far too minimal for the complexity of the operation and does not earn its place relative to the rich input schema.
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?
This is a complex update operation with a large body schema, no annotations, and no output schema. A one-line tautology is grossly insufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it 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?
The description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema is rich (pathParams with format and issueId, and a detailed bodyParams.issue object), but with 0% schema description coverage and no compensation from the description, the agent gets no guidance on how to use the parameters.
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 'Update issue' is a tautology of the tool name, restating the verb and resource without adding any scope or detail. It barely distinguishes from other issue-related tools, and there is no mention of what aspects of an issue can be updated.
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. There is no hint about when to prefer this tool over siblings like createIssue, deleteIssue, or getIssue, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update' without explaining side effects, whether it replaces the entire role list, what happens to omitted fields, or whether authorization is required. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While very short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single phrase adds no informative value and does not fulfill the requirement that every sentence earn its place by conveying useful, non-redundant information.
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?
The tool has a nested schema with required path and body parameters, but the description is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the return value, potential errors, or how the request should be structured, leaving the agent to guess from raw schema names.
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 provides no parameter information. The schema shows two objects (pathParams and bodyParams) with nested properties like membershipId, format, and role_ids, but the description does not explain their meaning or how to construct valid requests.
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 'Update membership' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name with a space. It does not specify what aspects of membership are updated, which resource is modified, or how it differs from sibling tools like createMembership or getMembership.
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. The description gives no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or relationships to other membership-related tools such as createMembership or deleteMembership.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, but 'Update news' only states the basic mutation type. It does not mention partial vs. full updates, required permissions, side effects, or what happens to omitted fields.
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 only two words, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure and does not provide any meaningful content beyond the tool name.
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?
The description is completely inadequate for a mutation tool with a nested input schema, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain the operation's inputs, behavior, or return value, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke it 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 adds no information about the two required parameters (pathParams/bodyParams) or their nested properties. The schema names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of coverage.
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 'Update news' simply restates the tool name 'updateNews' without adding specificity about the resource scope or operation details. It provides a verb and resource but fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like createNews or deleteNews.
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 createNews or deleteNews. The description does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update project' only implies a write operation but does not state permissions required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing fields, or any side effects. This is a severe transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short ('Update project'), which is concise but under-specified. It lacks necessary details and thus is not appropriate for the tool's complexity. Compare to 'Process' which scored 2 for under-specification; this is similarly inadequate.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested bodyParams, many optional fields) and absence of output schema and annotations, the description is wholly insufficient. It does not explain what fields can be updated, what the response contains, or any constraints. This is completely inadequate for an agent to use 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 adds no parameter-level meaning. While the schema lists many fields like name, homepage, is_public, etc., the description does not hint at which are updatable, required, or how they relate. With no compensation from the description, parameter semantics are completely unaddressed.
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 'Update project' is essentially a tautology of the tool name 'updateProject'. It states the action and resource but provides no scope or differentiation from sibling tools like updateUser, updateIssue, etc. Per the rubric, this is tautology, scoring 2.
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. No mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description provides zero context for when to choose updateProject over other update tools or project-specific actions like archiveProject or closeProject.
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?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, permission requirements, or scope of changes. 'Update user' only states the action itself, adding no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The two words add no value over the tool name and fail to earn their place.
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?
For a complex tool with nested user preferences, profile fields, and required pathParams, a two-word description is wholly inadequate. There is no output schema or annotations to compensate, leaving the agent without sufficient information to use 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 does not mention any of the two required parameters or the numerous nested fields. It adds no meaning to the input schema.
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 'Update user' merely restates the tool name 'updateUser' in plain words. It identifies the action and resource but adds no specific detail about what updating a user entails, making it a tautology.
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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateMyAccount' or 'updateMembership'. The description offers no 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Update version', which is ambiguous and fails to note that this is a mutation, potential side effects, authorization needs, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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?
While extremely short, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The phrase 'Update version' does not earn its place because it conveys no more than the tool name itself, providing no actionable information.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, enums, two required parameters) and absence of annotations or output schema, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to explain the version resource, the meaning of fields, or the update semantics, making it nearly useless 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 the description does not mention any parameters. The schema's nested objects (bodyParams.version with fields like name, status, sharing, due_date) are entirely unexplained. The description adds zero semantic value to the parameters.
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 'Update version' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'updateVersion'. It provides no information about what 'version' refers to, what fields can be changed, or how this differs from other update tools like updateIssue or updateProject.
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 createVersion or getVersions. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this update should be applied.
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?
With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits, but it offers none. 'Update attachment' fails to mention permissions, side effects, reversibility, return format, or whether it modifies the file content or only metadata, leaving the agent completely uninformed about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At only two words, the description is minimal, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is not front-loaded with useful information because it contains no information beyond the tool name, and every word is essentially redundant.
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?
The tool has nested objects, two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no contextual detail. It fails to explain request/response semantics, expected usage, or how it fits among the extensive list of sibling tools, making it wholly inadequate for an agent to operate 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%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The schema property names (attachmentId, filename, description, format) give some inherent hints, but the description adds no value in clarifying what these parameters mean, how they relate, or what values are expected.
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 'Update attachment' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'updateAttachment', adding no new information. It identifies the verb and resource but lacks any scope or distinction from the many other attachment-related sibling tools, making it a tautology.
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 like getAttachment, deleteAttachment, or uploadAttachmentFromLocalFile. The description gives no context for appropriate usage, prerequisites, or conditions that would signal this tool is the right 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the action 'Archive project' without explaining side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a state-changing operation.
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 extremely short (two words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not earn its place because it adds no value beyond the name, and the minimal structure fails to provide necessary context.
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?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and the presence of a nested parameter object, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, effects on project data, or how it relates to sibling tools like unarchiveProject, leaving the agent without essential context.
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 input schema includes a nested object with 'format' (enum json/xml) and 'projectId', but the description mentions neither parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning to the schema, leaving 'format' ambiguous and the purpose of the nested structure unclear.
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 'Archive project' is essentially a human-readable restatement of the tool name 'archiveProject', providing no additional detail about the action's scope or effect. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like closeProject or unarchiveProject, making it tautological rather than informative.
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 closeProject, reopenProject, or unarchiveProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. 'Create group' only states the operation type; it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation is idempotent. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely brief, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks any context or elaboration, making it an inefficient communication of the tool's functionality.
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?
Given the moderate complexity of the schema (nested group object, enum format, required fields), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to provide essential context about what a group is, how the parameters relate, or what to expect in the response.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description 'Create group' provides no explanation of parameter meanings, relationships, or required structure. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions; the agent must infer semantics solely from parameter names like 'format' and 'group'.
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 'Create group' simply restates the tool name 'createGroup' in natural language, adding no new information about the purpose or scope. It is a tautology rather than an independent explanation, so it cannot distinguish the tool from siblings beyond what the name already conveys.
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 like updateGroup or deleteGroup, nor any prerequisites or context. There is no mention of whether groups must exist first, what happens to associated users, or when this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the action itself. It does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, or any consequences of creating a version, leaving the agent with no safety or impact information.
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 concise but under-specified. It does not earn its place because it merely echoes the tool name and provides no additional explanatory value. This is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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?
Given the complex nested schema, absence of annotations, lack of output schema, and minimal description, the tool is grossly incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke it. There is no information about return values, required fields, or usage context.
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 0% description coverage, and the description provides zero parameter information. The agent must rely solely on raw JSON schema property names and types, which is insufficient for understanding required input semantics, especially with nested objects like pathParams and bodyParams.
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 'Create version' is a tautology, restating the tool name without adding any specificity about what a version is, the resource context, or distinguishing from sibling tools like createIssue or createNews. It lacks details about the object being created.
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, no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. There is no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List issue relations' and says nothing about read-only behavior, required permissions, output format, or error handling. This is a complete absence of behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short ('List issue relations'), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential structure or elaboration, making it unhelpful for the agent.
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?
The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object. The description provides no context about required parameters, output shape, or behavior, making it severely incomplete 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 the description does not mention the required pathParams (format, issueId). The agent gets no help understanding the parameters beyond the raw schema, which is insufficient given the nested object structure.
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 'List issue relations' provides a clear verb and resource, but it doesn't specify the scope (per issue) or distinguish it from the singular sibling getIssueRelation. The plural form implies multiple relations, but the description remains vague without mentioning the required issueId.
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. There is no information about when to use this tool versus getIssueRelation, createIssueRelation, or other relation-related tools. The agent receives no context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Show membership' reveals no traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or return format, leaving behavioral expectations completely unspecified.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It consists of two words and omits essential information that would make the tool usable.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter structure, the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the membership is identified, or how the output format parameter affects behavior, making the tool nearly impossible to select and invoke correctly without external knowledge.
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 adds no meaning to the parameters. The required membershipId and format (json/xml) are not mentioned, so the agent must rely entirely on the schema without any contextual explanation.
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 'Show membership' provides a verb and resource but is vague, not specifying that it retrieves a single membership by ID. It does not differentiate from the sibling getMemberships (plural), leaving the purpose to be inferred from the name and 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 on when to use this tool versus getMemberships or other membership-related tools. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, so the agent receives no decision support.
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?
There are no annotations to provide safety or side-effect hints, and the description offers no behavioral details. It fails to disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), the required format path parameter, or the return format, leaving the agent entirely in the dark.
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?
At two words, the description is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks necessary details to be useful, and while it is short, it does not earn its place because it conveys no meaningful invocation guidance.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, required nested path parameters, and no parameter descriptions, the description 'List news' is far from complete. An agent cannot determine required inputs, expected outputs, or behavioral nuances from this minimal text.
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 any of the parameters. The required `format` enum and the optional `limit`, `nometa`, and `offset` query parameters are completely unexplained, providing no semantic guidance beyond the bare schema names.
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 'List news' identifies the action and resource, but it is vague about scope—whether it lists all news or news filtered by project. It does not distinguish getNewsList from sibling tools like getNewsListByProject, making it ambiguous for an agent to select the correct one.
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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getNewsListByProject or getNews, nor does it suggest any exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, but 'Show user' reveals nothing about side effects, return format, or behavioral nuances. It does not even confirm whether this is a read-only operation or how it handles missing data.
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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides no useful information and could be applied to any user-fetching tool.
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?
The tool has nested parameters and no output schema, yet the description is a bare phrase. It does not explain what data is returned, how 'include' affects the response, or any other essential context, making it severely 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain parameters like 'format', 'userId', and 'include'. It mentions none of them, failing to add any meaning beyond the raw schema structure.
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 'Show user' provides a verb and resource, but it is vague and lacks scope or differentiation. It does not mention retrieving by user ID or distinguish itself from siblings like 'getUsers' or 'getCurrentUser'.
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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or explicit exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema and siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update journal', which adds no information about permissions, side effects, whether the update is partial or full, or what the response will be. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The fragment 'Update journal' simply restates the tool name and provides no value beyond what the name already conveys.
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?
The tool has two required parameters with a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides no information about return format, error conditions, or example usage, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke 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 says nothing about the required pathParams (format, journalId) or bodyParams (journal object with notes/private_notes). The schema is self-explanatory but the description fails to compensate for the lack of param documentation.
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 'Update journal' identifies a clear verb and resource, but 'journal' is ambiguous and no scope is defined. It does not differentiate from other update* siblings beyond the resource name, providing minimal clarity about what exactly is being updated.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, target scenarios, or related tools, leaving the agent without decision support.
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?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the basic action and provides no information about idempotency, required permissions, validation behavior, or response semantics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely brief and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It lacks the structural detail needed to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
With nested required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no operational context. It does not explain how to supply user_id and groupId, what format to use, or what success or failure looks like.
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 adds no parameter meaning. The nested bodyParams and pathParams, including the required format parameter, remain completely unexplained beyond the raw schema.
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 operation ('Add') and the objects involved ('user' to 'group'). It is distinct from the sibling 'removeUserFromGroup', though it does not elaborate on scope or differentiate from potentially overlapping membership-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 createMembership or addWatcher. There are no prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions mentioned.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Close project' reveals nothing about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what closing entails. It is essentially a label rather than a description of behavior.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The two words merely restate the tool name and omit essential information needed for correct usage.
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?
The tool has a nested parameter structure, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools that could be confused with it. The description is far too minimal to provide the necessary context for an AI 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.
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 the 'format' or 'projectId' parameters. The agent receives no guidance on what these values mean or how they affect the close operation.
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 ('Close') and resource ('project'), making it clear that the tool closes a project. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like archiveProject or deleteProject, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage context is provided. The description does not state when to use closeProject versus alternatives such as archiveProject or updateProject, and offers no criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. The phrase 'Create time entry' only restates the tool name and implies a write operation, but does not disclose permissions, validation requirements, error behavior, or any other behavioral traits. This is a tautological statement that adds no transparency.
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 extremely brief (three words), which is concise in length but under-specified. It redundantly restates the tool name and does not earn its place by adding useful information. For a tool with a nested parameter schema, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (create operation with nested body and required hours), the description is wholly inadequate. It does not explain return values, required fields, relationships between issue_id and project_id, or any usage context. With no output schema or annotations, the description leaves almost everything to be inferred from the schema alone.
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 contains no parameter information. The schema defines structural properties like hours, user_id, and comments, but the description adds no semantic meaning, such as what 'hours' represents or how pathParams format affects the request. The description completely fails to 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 states the tool's action ('create') and resource ('time entry') clearly, matching the tool name. It is distinct from sibling tools like updateTimeEntry, deleteTimeEntry, and getTimeEntry through the explicit create verb. However, it does not elaborate on what a time entry is or include any scope details, so it is clear but not highly differentiating.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios such as logging time against an issue/project or choosing between issue_id and project_id. It simply states the action without any contextual usage direction.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Delete issue' without explaining permanence, cascading effects on related data (e.g., issue relations, time entries, attachments), required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It omits crucial information, and the brevity does not serve the agent; it is closer to the 'Process' example where under-specification is penalized.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, nested parameter structure, and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to convey scope, side effects, or any operational context, making it inadequate for safe and 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema specifies pathParams with format and issueId, but the description does not mention them, leaving the agent without additional context about formats, required fields, or usage nuances.
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 'Delete issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and target. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deleteProject and deleteUser, though it could benefit from specifying that deletion is by issue ID.
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 updateIssue, createIssue, or archiveProject. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred contexts, so the agent receives no usage direction.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Show issue relation' merely restates the tool's name and provides no details about permissions, side effects, error behavior, or return format. It adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already implies.
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 extremely short but under-specified rather than concise. It is a three-word phrase that fails to earn its place by conveying necessary information, similar to a placeholder.
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?
Given that there is no output schema or annotations, and the tool deals with a nested object containing multiple parameters, the description is far too sparse. It does not clarify that this retrieves a single relation by ID, how it relates to sibling tools, or what output to expect.
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 adds no meaning to the input parameters. It does not explain 'format' or 'issueRelationId', leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema's property names and enum values.
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 'Show issue relation' specifies a clear action (show) and resource (issue relation), effectively telling the agent it retrieves an issue relation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'getIssueRelations' (plural), which likely lists all relations, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'getIssueRelations' or 'createIssueRelation'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or cases where another tool 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.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List issues' and fails to mention pagination, filtering, response format, read-only nature, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is almost no disclosure beyond the tool's 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 description is extremely concise ('List issues'), which is efficient but under-specified. It lacks essential context and is more of a title than a helpful description, so the conciseness is not a virtue here.
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?
Given the complex schema with many optional filters, a required format parameter, and no output schema, a two-word description is wholly inadequate. The tool likely requires knowledge of path format and query parameters to be used correctly, none of which are conveyed.
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 input schema contains numerous undocumented query parameters (e.g., cf_x, nometa, spent_time) and required pathParams/queryParams objects, with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds no meaning to these parameters, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to use them.
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 'List issues' clearly states the action (list) and resource (issues), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like getIssue or clarify the exact scope (e.g., does it list all issues or requires filters).
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 use getIssues versus getIssue or other list tools, nor does it mention prerequisites, filtering scenarios, or alternative tools that might be more appropriate.
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List memberships' conveys only the basic action and resource, with no mention of return format, pagination, read-only nature, or any side effects. It is a bare label rather than a behavioral explanation.
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?
At two words, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The lack of structure or additional context does not earn its place; it simply states the obvious.
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?
The tool has nested parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description provides no operational context. It fails to inform the agent about required pathParams, query parameters, or expected behavior, making it severely 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention format, projectId, limit, nometa, or offset. The nested object structure is entirely undocumented in the description.
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 (List) and resource (memberships), distinguishing it from singular getMembership and mutation tools like createMembership/updateMembership. However, it lacks context about scope (e.g., project-specific memberships) which is implied by required pathParams.
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 vs alternatives like getMembership or createMembership. The description offers no context for when to select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List queries', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or any other behavioral trait. The implicit read-only nature is not sufficient for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, 'List queries', which is concise and front-loaded with the core action. However, the brevity borders on under-specification; it is two words that convey only the most basic intent but omit essential details, making it an example of minimalism rather than effective conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's nested schema, two required parameters, and absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. The agent cannot determine required path/query parameters, expected response structure, or usage constraints. This description offers virtually no guidance beyond the tool's name, making it inadequate for reliable 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?
The input schema defines two nested objects (pathParams with format enum, and queryParams with limit, nometa, offset), but the description does not reference or explain any of these parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the description completely fails to compensate, offering no semantic context for what format, limit, offset, or nometa mean or how they affect the listing.
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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'queries', making the basic action and object clear. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of queries are listed, what scope or filtering applies, and it does not differentiate itself from any potential alternate tool because no other query tool is present. It is barely more informative than the tool name itself.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of excluded scenarios. The description is limited to 'List queries' with no contextual advice, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show wiki page' only implies a read operation, but does not describe what data is returned, whether authentication is required, how parameters like format and include affect behavior, or any other side effects. This is almost no information beyond the obvious.
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 extremely concise (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It lacks structure and fails to convey essential information, making it more of a placeholder than a helpful description.
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?
The tool has a nested schema with required path parameters, an enum for response format, and an optional include parameter, but the description 'Show wiki page' is completely inadequate for guiding an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not mention the required parameters, the format selection, or the optional attachment inclusion, and it does not differentiate from sibling wiki tools.
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 adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain the purpose of pathParams (format, projectId, wikiPageTitle) or queryParams (include), leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone. The description fails to 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 'Show wiki page' uses a specific verb (show) and resource (wiki page), clearly indicating the tool retrieves a single wiki page. It is clear enough, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like getWikiPages (list) or getWikiPageByVersion (specific version).
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 that getWikiPages lists pages or that getWikiPageByVersion retrieves a specific version, leaving the agent without usage context.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to mention any side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, or error handling. For a mutation tool, this is a critical gap.
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 extremely short (two words), which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It does not provide enough information for a tool with nested parameters and no other documentation.
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?
This tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter structure, yet the description offers no context about return values, behavior on failure, or prerequisite conditions. It is wholly inadequate for an agent to invoke this 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description gives no additional meaning to the parameters. The pathParams object with format, issueId, and userId is explained only by their names, with no clarification of formats, relationships, or acceptable values beyond the schema enum.
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 'Remove watcher' includes a clear verb and resource, matching the tool name and suggesting the action of removing a watcher from an issue, especially given the issueId and userId parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like addWatcher, though it lacks explicit context about the target resource (e.g., 'from an issue').
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, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The description is purely a statement of action without context on when it is appropriate to invoke or how it differs from similar tools like removeUserFromGroup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are available, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update time entry' and provides no details on mutation semantics, required permissions, partial vs. full replacement, or response behavior, offering no value beyond the tool 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 description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified; the single sentence merely restates the tool name and provides no additional information, making it not a genuinely concise contribution.
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?
Given the complex nested schema with many time_entry fields, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-line description is completely inadequate for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. It lacks essential context about required parameters and behavior.
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 no parameters such as timeEntryId or hours. It adds no meaning beyond the raw schema, failing to clarify required fields or the structure of the time_entry body.
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?
Description 'Update time entry' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a modification operation on a time entry. It distinguishes from sibling time entry tools (create/get/delete) through its update action, though it doesn't explicitly describe scope or 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createTimeEntry or getTimeEntries. The description lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Create issue' reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of being minimally useful. It lacks any structuring or additional context, so while not verbose, it does not earn high marks for effective structure.
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?
Given the complexity of the schema (nested objects, many optional fields) and the lack of annotations or output schema, the one-word description is entirely inadequate. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, or usage scenarios.
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 description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not mention 'pathParams' or 'bodyParams' or any required fields. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to infer all semantics from the schema 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 'Create issue' clearly states the action and resource, using a specific verb and object. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'createIssueRelation' or 'addRelatedIssue', so it lacks the scope that would earn 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral consequences. It only restates the operation ('Delete attachment') without mentioning irreversibility, permissions required, impact on related data, or error conditions. This is a tautological restatement of the tool name, providing no behavioral context beyond what the name implies.
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 extremely brief ('Delete attachment'), which is concise in word count but lacks substantive structure. It is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, as it fails to provide operational details that an agent would need. A well-structured description would front-load the main action but also include key caveats or 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?
Given the simplicity of the operation, the description is incomplete. It omits any mention of the response format (json/xml), the meaning of attachmentId, or the consequences of deletion (e.g., permanent removal). There is no output schema or annotations to compensate, so the description leaves critical context unaddressed for a mutation 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?
The schema shows two parameters (format, attachmentId) inside pathParams, but neither the schema nor the description provides any semantic explanation. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does nothing to compensate by explaining parameter usage or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds zero value over the schema fields.
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 'Delete attachment' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (attachment), distinguishing it from other delete tools in the sibling list (e.g., deleteProject, deleteUser). However, it lacks any scope or specificity beyond the resource type, such as which attachment or under what conditions, so it does not fully meet the 5-level bar of a specific verb+resource+scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools for related operations (e.g., updateAttachment, getAttachment). This is a clear absence of usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., permanent deletion, cascading effects, permission requirements). The description carries the full burden and fails to disclose behavior.
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 sentence and is concise, but it is under-specified. It is not 'appropriately sized' given the tool's complexity and the need for context.
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?
The tool has nested required parameters and no output schema, and the description does not explain return values, errors, or irreversible nature. It is inadequate for an AI agent to safely invoke.
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 defines a nested pathParams object with format and timeEntryId, but the description does not mention these parameters or their semantics. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 'Delete time entry' uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('time entry'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools by resource type, though it adds no extra scope or behavior.
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. It does not state prerequisites, such as whether the time entry must exist or whether any conditions apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Remove user from group' implies a mutation but does not disclose permissions, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions, making it inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified and adds no value beyond the tool name. It is concise but not effective.
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?
Given the nested parameter object, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is completely inadequate. It does not explain invocation requirements, return behavior, or edge cases.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not reference the required pathParams (groupId, userId, format) at all. The agent must rely solely on the schema's parameter names, which are not self-explanatory (e.g., format is an enum but its purpose is unclear).
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 (remove) and the object (user from group), distinguishing it from sibling tools like addUserToGroup. However, it adds no context beyond the tool name, making it a clear but minimal 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as deleteMembership or removeWatcher, nor any prerequisites like group/user existence. The description gives no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Delete group' only states the action itself, but does not mention consequences (e.g., cascading effects on group memberships), irreversibility, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a destructive tool.
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 extremely brief at two words, which is under-specification rather than good conciseness. It front-loads the action but omits critical details such as parameter meaning and side effects, so every sentence does not earn its place.
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?
Given the tool's destructive nature, nested parameter structure, and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. It provides no context about what group deletion entails, how groupId identifies the group, or what happens to related data.
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 any parameters. It fails to explain the purpose of groupId or format, even though these are nested in a required pathParams object. The schema provides basic names and types, but the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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 'Delete group' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (group), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like deleteProject and deleteUser by resource name. However, it lacks any additional context about scope or specific group types, so it doesn't fully earn 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or cases where a different delete tool (e.g., deleteProject) should be used instead. This is a clear gap for a destructive operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely repeats the delete action implied by the tool name, without stating whether deletion is permanent, what cascading effects occur, whether special permissions are required, or what response to expect.
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 only three words, which is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. It does not provide a sentence that earns its place; it restates the tool name without adding useful context or structure.
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?
The tool has a nested parameter object, no annotations, no output schema, and sits among 80+ sibling tools. The one-line description is completely inadequate to help an agent understand the deletion's effects, required inputs, or expected outcome.
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 adds no explanation of pathParams, projectId, wikiPageTitle, or format. The schema itself defines these properties, but the description contributes zero additional meaning, so it fails to compensate for the complete lack of 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 'Delete wiki page' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (wiki page), distinguishing it from other delete tools like deleteProject or deleteUser. However, it does not elaborate on scope or behavior, so it is clear but lacks the sibling differentiation seen in higher-scoring examples.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of when deletion should or should not be performed. There is also no reference to related wiki page tools such as updateWikiPage or getWikiPage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update issue category,' with no mention of side effects, permissions, partial vs. full update, reversibility, or what happens to existing fields. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently compact. It omits essential information that should be present, making it closer to a title than a description.
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?
Given a nested schema with two required top-level parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails, what the parameters are for, or any behavioral context. This is well below the minimum viable description.
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 parameter meanings. It does not: it fails to mention pathParams.issueCategoryId, format, or bodyParams.issue_category fields (name, assigned_to_id). The schema shows structure but no semantics, and the description adds zero 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 'Update issue category' clearly states the verb (update) and resource (issue category), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createIssueCategory, getIssueCategory, and deleteIssueCategory. However, it is almost identical to the tool name and provides no additional scope or detail, so it doesn't fully capitalize on the opportunity to add 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 usage is implied by the verb 'update'—use this when you need to modify an existing issue category—but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., createIssueCategory) to prefer in other scenarios. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only restates 'update' without disclosing permissions, partial update semantics, side effects, or result format. This is inadequate for a mutation operation.
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 extremely brief (one sentence), but it is under-specified and merely duplicates the tool name without adding value. It does not earn its place as a standalone description.
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?
Given the substantial schema complexity (2 required params with deeply nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the single-sentence description is severely lacking. It fails to explain what fields can be updated, the role of pathParams, or any constraints.
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 provides no explanation of parameters. The complex nested schema (bodyParams with pref and user objects, pathParams with format) is completely unexplained, leaving the agent without field 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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource ('my account'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateUser (admin updating any user) and getMyAccount (read-only). It is specific and 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getMyAccount for reading or updateUser for admin updates. No context, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'List issue categories', which implies a read-only operation but does not disclose any specifics such as required authentication, response format, potential errors, or whether it returns all categories at once. No additional behavioral context is provided.
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 that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids wordiness, but the extreme brevity sacrifices instructional value. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without padding.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is severely incomplete. The tool has nested input objects and two required parameters, yet the description provides only a terse phrase with no information on return values, response structure, pagination, or error behavior. It is not sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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 0% description coverage, and the description itself does not mention any parameters. It fails to explain the required pathParams (format, projectId) or the optional nometa query parameter. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already exposes, which is nearly nothing in terms of 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 'List issue categories' is a clear verb+resource statement that accurately identifies the operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getIssueCategory (singular) and create/update/delete variants by using 'list' to imply plural retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention that it operates per project, which is a key scoping detail.
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. It does not mention that it lists categories for a specific project via projectId, nor does it differentiate from getIssueCategory or other list-type tools. The description offers no context for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or behavior on missing IDs. The word 'show' is vague and lacks any detail about side effects or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise at only four words, but that brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail. It is not verbose, but it also isn't efficiently informative, making it under-specified rather than well-structured.
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 a simple tool with no output schema and no annotation, the description should at least note that it retrieves a single issue category by ID and returns its details, plus perhaps the expected response format. It does none of this, leaving the agent without critical context for successful 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description mentions none of the parameters (format, issueCategoryId). It does not explain the meaning of the ID, the format enum, or how they interact. The description adds no value beyond the tool name.
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 'Show issue category' which is a clear verb+resource pair, indicating the tool retrieves an issue category. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getIssueCategories (which lists all) or updateIssueCategory, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 vs alternatives such as getIssueCategories for listing all categories or updateIssueCategory/deleteIssueCategory. The description simply states what it does without context, so an agent receives no help in choosing between related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List projects' implies a read operation but discloses no behavioral details such as whether it returns all projects, supports pagination or filtering, or has any side effects. The return format and potential limitations are unmentioned.
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 with only two words, which is efficient but under-specified for the tool's complexity. It lacks any meaningful structure or front-loaded important details, so it earns a middle score.
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?
Given the complex schema with many filters and no output schema or annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to use filters, pagination, or any other behavioral context needed for correct invocation by an AI agent.
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 numerous parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of them. It does not mention pathParams (format) or queryParams (id, status, include, etc.), leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid calls.
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 'List projects' clearly states the action (list) and resource (projects), and the plural form distinguishes it from the singular 'getProject' sibling. However, it adds little beyond the tool name and does not specify scope or filtering capabilities, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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 indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like getProject, getIssues, or createProject, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'List roles'. It does not disclose output format, pagination, sorting, or whether roles are returned in a specific format (despite the required 'format' parameter). The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.
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 extremely terse, consisting only of 'List roles'. While it is front-loaded and free of filler, it is under-specified to the point of being a fragment, offering no structural guidance or additional 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?
Given the required format parameter and the presence of a similar getRole tool, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the format parameter, the response structure, or how this tool differs from others in the same domain.
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 0% description coverage and the description does not compensate. The required 'pathParams.format' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the enum values 'json' and 'xml', which is not aided by the tool description.
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 'List roles' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a read operation to retrieve roles. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'getRole', which retrieves a single role, or mention whether this returns all roles.
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 explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getRole', nor does it mention any filtering or condition for listing roles.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Show', implying a read operation without specifying return format, error behavior, or side effects. It does not clarify whether it returns content, metadata, or how version existence is handled.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified. It omits essential details that are not recoverable from the schema, making it more terse than usefully concise.
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 nested pathParams/queryParams structure, six underlying parameters, and no output schema, the description is inadequately complete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, return values, or operational context, leaving agents to guess.
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 adds no parameter explanations. It hints at version-based lookup but does not clarify the meaning of format, include, projectId, or wikiPageTitle, leaving the agent without critical information.
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 a 'Show wiki page' operation with the qualifier 'by specific version', making it distinct from sibling tools like getWikiPage and getWikiPages. The verb and resource are specific, and the version qualifier differentiates the tool, though it does not explicitly name an 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus getWikiPage or how to list available versions. The description gives no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List wiki pages' implies a read operation but gives no details about whether it returns page content or metadata, whether pagination exists, or how projectId affects results. This is insufficient 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The phrase 'List wiki pages' is extremely short, but under-specification is not conciseness. It lacks necessary details such as scope, parameters, and return behavior, making it minimally useful.
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 one nested parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not convey that projectId is required, what format values mean, or what the response represents, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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 the required pathParams (format, projectId). The schema itself provides basic property names and enum, but the description adds no meaning to help an agent understand parameter purpose or usage.
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 the verb 'List' and resource 'wiki pages', making it clear this tool retrieves multiple wiki pages. However, it lacks any scope detail (e.g., per project, all pages) and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling getWikiPage, though the plural form hints at the difference.
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 like getWikiPage or getWikiPageByVersion. The description simply states the action without any context about project scoping or format options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only repeats the action without mentioning effects, required permissions, or side effects. This is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specification rather than concise. It provides no additional information beyond the tool name, so it fails to earn its place.
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 nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full input context, expected outcomes, or pitfalls. The presence of sibling tools with overlapping functionality makes this particularly inadequate.
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 input schema has a nested object with required fields but zero schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. The agent is left to guess what 'issueId', 'projectId', 'repositoryId', 'revision', and 'format' mean in this context.
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 'Remove related issue' states a specific action and resource, making the primary function clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like deleteIssueRelation or addRelatedIssue, which could cause confusion about which removal tool to use.
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 deleteIssueRelation or removeWatcher. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context cues in the 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?
Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create or update wiki page' without mentioning idempotency, version handling, required permissions, or response behavior, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (single clause) but under-specified. It is not tautological, but it lacks necessary context for a tool with nested parameters and enum choices, making it poorly sized for the task.
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?
The tool has a complex schema with nested objects and required parameters, and no output schema or annotations. The description is minimal and fails to provide usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly in varied scenarios.
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 provides no explanation of parameters such as format, projectId, wikiPageTitle, or the wiki_page structure. The property names in the schema give hints, but the description adds no semantic value to aid the agent.
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 'Create or update wiki page', which clearly identifies a specific verb (create/update) and resource (wiki page). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getWikiPage and deleteWikiPage by implying modification, though it does not specify the dual behavior in detail.
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. The description does not mention whether it is for new pages, existing pages, or both, nor does it reference any sibling tools or conditions for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'List time entries' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose pagination behavior (limit/offset), response format (json/xml), or the breadth of filtering available. This is minimal but not actively misleading.
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 only three words, which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It front-loads the core action but omits all useful context, earning no structural credit.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (many query parameters, nested path/query objects, no output schema, no annotations), a 3-word description is grossly incomplete. The agent has no information about accepted filters, return shape, pagination, or the required 'format' path parameter, making correct invocation unlikely.
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 adds no parameter details. It does not explain that 'pathParams.format' selects json vs xml, nor does it elaborate on query filter parameters like 'from', 'to', 'project_id', or 'issue_id'. 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.
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 ('time entries'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like 'getTimeEntry' (singular), 'createTimeEntry', and 'deleteTimeEntry'. It unambiguously indicates this is a collection-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 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 'getTimeEntry' for a single entry or 'getTimeEntryActivities' for activity metadata. There is no mention of available filters (e.g., by project, user, date range) or when this list endpoint is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies mutation, but omits critical details such as whether issues in the category are deleted or reassigned, whether deletion is permanent, and the role of the reassign_to_id query parameter. The schema hints at reassignment but the description is silent.
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 phrase, which is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it is excessively terse and lacks the structural guidance (e.g., a second sentence on behavior or parameters) that would make it genuinely helpful.
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?
Given the presence of three parameters, a nested object structure, and no annotations or output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to cover how to use the tool, what the reassign parameter does, or any side effects, making it impossible for an agent to invoke it correctly with confidence.
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 parameter meanings. It provides none. The agent must infer the purpose of format, issueCategoryId, and reassign_to_id solely from their names, which is insufficient for correct 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('issue category'), using a specific verb+resource structure. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like deleteIssue, deleteProject, and the create/update/get issue category variants.
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, nor any context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the category must be empty) or when reassignment is needed. The description offers no exclusions or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining the destructive nature of the operation. It only says 'delete', implying mutation but not disclosing irreversibility, permissions, cascading effects, or other behaviors.
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, but it is under-specified. It lacks structure and does not provide enough information to be considered well-crafted. It is not verbose, but it sacrifices necessary details 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?
For a destructive operation with nested parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to mention the required pathParams or provide context about the operation's effects, leaving the agent without essential 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?
The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of the pathParams, newsId, or format. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter explanation.
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 'Delete news' clearly states the verb and resource, distinguishing it from other delete tools like deleteProject and deleteUser. It is specific enough to identify the action, though it lacks additional scope or 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or any context that would help an agent decide between deleting a news item and other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List custom fields' only indicates a read operation; it does not reveal response format, pagination, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This minimal information adds little beyond the tool's name.
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 highly concise and front-loaded with the verb and object, containing no fluff. While it is short, it packs the essential action, making it efficient and readable.
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?
The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and an undocumented parameter. It does not specify what the response includes, how the 'format' parameter affects the result, or any additional context needed for correct usage.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the required 'format' parameter at all. The description adds no meaning to the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('custom fields'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list-type siblings, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context such as prerequisite conditions, use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'List groups', which implies a read operation but doesn't state permissions, pagination, scope, or response format. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed.
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 two words, which is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with a required nested parameter, so it's not ideal conciseness as it omits necessary 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 simple list tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description only states the core action. It omits the required format parameter, any filtering/scoping, and any distinction from getGroup, making it 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 input schema includes a required pathParams.format with an enum of json/xml, but the description does not mention this parameter at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented 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 'List groups' clearly states a list operation for a group resource, using a specific verb and noun. It distinguishes from sibling getGroup (singular) by implying plural collection, though it doesn't explicitly say 'all' or 'multiple'.
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 instructions on when to use this tool versus getGroup or other group tools, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. Usage must be inferred 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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'list', which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't disclose what data is returned, whether all statuses are included, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. This is barely more informative than the tool's name.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence and no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified, which slightly reduces the value, but for what it attempts to communicate, it is efficient.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the response contains, but it doesn't. It also ignores the required 'format' parameter. Given the simple nature of the tool, the description is still incomplete for an agent to fully understand expected inputs and outputs.
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 a required nested parameter 'format' with an enum of 'json' or 'xml', but the description gives no explanation of this parameter or its purpose. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not mention parameters at all.
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?
Describes the tool as 'List issue statuses', which clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'issue statuses'. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like getIssueCategories or getTrackers, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond naming the resource.
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. The description simply repeats the tool's purpose without mentioning context, exclusions, or references to sibling 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read operation via 'List' but does not disclose response format, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. The query params like limit, offset, and nometa remain unexplained.
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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and respects the reader's attention, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters across two nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to explain any parameter semantics, expected return structure, or behavioral nuances, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke 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%, yet the description provides zero information about parameters. The schema itself has no descriptions for format, projectId, limit, offset, or nometa, and the description does not compensate. The agent cannot understand what values to provide or their meaning.
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 'List news by project' clearly states the verb (List), resource (news), and scope (by project), which distinguishes it from the sibling getNewsList that likely lists all news. However, it is overly terse and could be more explicit about filtering by projectId.
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. The sibling getNewsList exists for a broader scope, but the description does not mention it or any exclusion criteria. Users are left to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'List users' only states the basic action, without disclosing return format, pagination behavior, required path format parameter, or any potential 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and free of filler, but it under-specifies the tool. While structurally efficient as a single sentence, the brevity edges into under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a schema with required path format and multiple optional filters, a two-word description is grossly insufficient. It fails to mention query capabilities, pagination, required format, or response shape.
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 0% description coverage and the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not explain the required path format or the optional query filters (name, limit, offset, status, group_id), forcing the agent to rely solely on 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 'List users' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (users), which unambiguously identifies the operation. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like getUser and getCurrentUser, which retrieve a single user or the current user.
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 getUser or getCurrentUser. There is no mention of pagination, filtering, or any context that would help an agent choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning permanence, required permissions, potential side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. This is inadequate for a destructive tool.
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 with no wasted words, but it under-specifies. It is a single short phrase that could be more informative without sacrificing 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?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested parameter object, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the purpose of the format parameter, the identifier type, or how it relates to similar tools like removeRelatedIssue, leaving the agent uncertain.
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 provides no parameter information. It does not mention that pathParams is required or that issueRelationId and format are needed. The description adds no value beyond the schema itself.
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 action ('delete') and the resource ('issue relation'), which distinguishes it from siblings like createIssueRelation and getIssueRelations. The verb-resource pairing is specific and 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as removeRelatedIssue or deleteIssue. The description is purely declarative and offers no contextual or conditional usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention response format, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. It adds no context beyond what the verb itself suggests.
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 phrase with zero filler words. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail. It is highly concise and well-structured for a minimal 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, 'List document categories' is too sparse to be fully actionable. It does not explain what a document category is, how the format parameter affects behavior, or what the return structure looks like. Significant contextual gaps remain despite the tool's simplicity.
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 the required 'format' parameter or explain its 'json'/'xml' values. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema's enum, failing to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('document categories'), making it easy to understand the tool's basic purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getIssueCategories by the explicit 'document' qualifier. However, it lacks any scope or qualifier beyond the resource name, so it doesn't fully disambiguate from all possible category-listing 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getIssueCategories or other list tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context about the intended scenario are provided. The tool name and description imply usage, but the description offers no explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'List' which essentially repeats the tool name. It doesn't explain the response format, ordering, or any other behavioral details, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is so short that it verges on under-specification, though that lack of detail is already captured 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should carry more contextual weight. It omits any mention of the 'format' parameter and what the returned priority list contains, making it incomplete even for a simple list tool.
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 required 'format' parameter is present in the schema with an enum of json/xml, but the description does not mention it. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what the parameter controls, leaving the agent to infer.
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 'List' and resource 'issue priorities', clearly identifying the tool's function. The resource name is unique among the many sibling list tools, so it is distinguishable, though it doesn't explicitly mention 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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus other list tools like getIssueStatuses or getTrackers. No alternatives, exclusions, or use cases 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no detail about response structure, pagination, authentication, or side effects, which is insufficient for a list 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 a single, focused sentence with no fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and 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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter explanations, this description is far too sparse. It does not provide enough context for an agent to safely invoke the tool, especially since the tool's purpose and boundaries are ambiguous relative to siblings.
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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'format' parameter at all. The one required parameter (with an enum of json/xml) is unexplained, so the agent is left without 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 'List time entry activities' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like getTimeEntries, which could also involve listing time-entry-related 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only repeats the action 'create' without mentioning permissions, idempotency, failure modes, 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is as concise as possible for a tool of this simplicity.
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?
Given the nested input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-line description is critically incomplete. It fails to mention project scoping, format selection, response behavior, or any operational context needed to use 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 adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain pathParams (format, projectId) or bodyParams (issue_category with name and assigned_to_id), leaving the agent without semantic guidance.
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 ('issue category'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like createIssue by naming the category resource.
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 alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as project context. The description is a bare statement with no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, authentication needs, or any potential side effects, which is minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise phrase 'List trackers' that is front-loaded and free of unnecessary words. However, it borders on under-specification, offering only the barest purpose without any supporting details.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the tool is described with only a one-line purpose. The description omits the required format parameter, response expectations, and any useful context, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke 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?
The input schema defines a single required pathParams.format with json/xml enum values, but the description does not mention parameters at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema, leaving the agent to infer the purpose of pathParams.
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 trackers' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target issues, projects, users, etc., as no other sibling deals with trackers.
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. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without contextual cues for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only says 'download to local file system'. It omits important details such as default output directory, overwrite behavior, error handling, or any authentication 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices valuable context, though it earns points for not being 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?
Given the tool has nested parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain the output directory default, required parameters, or how this tool fits among similar download/upload siblings.
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 includes descriptions for attachmentId, filename, and outputDir, but the description adds no parameter information. With 0% schema_description_coverage, the description fails to clarify how the parameters relate to the download process, leaving the agent to rely solely on 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 clearly states the action (Download), the resource (attachment file from Redmine), and the destination (local file system). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like downloadThumbnailToLocalFile and downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as downloadThumbnailToLocalFile or downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic list action. It does not mention authentication requirements, response format, pagination, or whether only open versions are returned. This is a significant gap for a 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient. However, it is under-specified to the point of lacking useful detail, so conciseness is achieved at the expense of substance.
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?
There is no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description. The tool has nested parameters and requires a projectId and format, but the description gives no guidance on required fields, response shape, or limitations. For a simple list tool, this is 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (pathParams.projectId, pathParams.format, queryParams.nometa) or their roles. The agent must rely entirely on the schema, which is insufficient without additional 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 'List versions by project' uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'versions' and scope 'by project'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getVersions (which likely lists all versions) and createVersion by indicating project-scoped listing.
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 needing versions for a specific project, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over getVersions or other alternatives. No exclusions or context are given, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read operation, but there is no disclosure of authentication requirements, response shape, or potential errors. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the name.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with nested parameters, though the brevity itself is not penalized heavily.
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?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description. It does not define what 'current user' entails, what data is returned, or how the parameters influence the response, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 the description adds no parameter meaning. The parameter names (pathParams, queryParams) and enums (format, include) are self-explanatory only at a surface level, but the description does not explain their purpose or valid combinations, failing to 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Show current user' uses a specific verb (show) and resource (current user), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like getUser (which implies a specified user) and getUsers (list). It is concise and 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the name 'getCurrentUser' and sibling context (e.g., getUser, getUsers) imply it is for the authenticated user, so usage is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the core action, without addressing whether the operation is read-only, how errors are handled, what the response structure is, or any rate limits or auth requirements. The phrase 'as Base64 encoded content' hints at the output format but does not disclose the exact return structure or potential 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?
The description is a single sentence that uses precise terminology and zero filler. It front-loads the key action and output format, making it immediately scannable. There is no unnecessary repetition of the tool name or schema details, so it earns a high score for conciseness and structure.
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 lack of annotations, output schema, and any mention of the return format beyond 'Base64 encoded content', the description is incomplete for a tool with a nested parameter. It does not clarify how the base64 content is delivered (e.g., raw response vs. wrapped in a JSON object), nor does it mention what happens if the attachment ID is invalid or the thumbnail does not exist. This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently without further inference.
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 description does not mention the single parameter (pathParams.attachmentId), leaving all semantics to the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter explanation. While the schema itself describes the parameter as 'Redmine attachment ID to download thumbnail for', the tool description adds no value for parameter understanding.
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 'download', the resource 'thumbnail from Redmine', and the output format 'Base64 encoded content'. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like downloadThumbnailToLocalFile (which downloads to a file) and downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content (which downloads an attachment, not a thumbnail). The purpose is unambiguous and 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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools that handle attachments or local file downloads. It does not state alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. A user must infer that this is the right choice for getting a thumbnail as base64, but no explicit direction is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without detailing side effects, default output behavior, error handling, permissions, or what happens if the thumbnail doesn't exist. The schema hints at an optional output directory defaulting to OS temp, but the description omits this.
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 redundant wording. It states the essential action and resource 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?
Given the tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description is overly sparse. It lacks context about file naming conventions, handling of existing files, expected return value (e.g., success message or path), and possible errors. The description doesn't elaborate on what a 'thumbnail' means in Redmine or how it relates to attachments, leaving the agent with limited information for robust usage.
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 tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the input schema provides clear descriptions for attachmentId ('Redmine attachment ID to download thumbnail for') and outputDir ('Optional output directory (defaults to OS temp directory)'). Since the schema covers parameter semantics well, the description doesn't need to repeat them, but it also doesn't add extra meaning beyond 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 clearly uses the verb 'Download' with a specific resource ('thumbnail from Redmine') and destination ('local file system'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like downloadThumbnailAsBase64Content and downloadAttachmentToLocalFile by specifying the thumbnail scope and file output.
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 alternative download methods (e.g., downloadAttachmentToLocalFile, downloadThumbnailAsBase64Content). It doesn't state prerequisites or conditions for choosing this tool, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions the return value (upload token) but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, token expiry, or the fact that the upload is likely temporary until attached to a resource. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain the return value, which it does ('get upload token'). However, it lacks context about the purpose of the token (e.g., for use in creating issues), the nested parameter structure, or any prerequisites. The tool has moderate complexity with a nested object and no annotations, so the description is insufficient for a complete 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% at the top level, so the description must compensate. It indirectly references the 'content' parameter via 'Base64 encoded content' but does not mention the 'filename' parameter or explain the nested 'pathParams' structure. The schema provides some descriptions for nested properties, but the description adds little beyond that.
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 action ('Upload attachment file'), the source format ('Base64 encoded content'), destination ('Redmine'), and the output ('get upload token'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like uploadAttachmentFromLocalFile and downloadAttachmentAsBase64Content.
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 by the phrase 'from Base64 encoded content', suggesting this is for when the user has base64-encoded data, but no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned. It does not reference sibling tools or exclusion scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the output is Base64 content, but gives no information about response structure, error handling, authentication requirements, size limits, or whether it is a safe read operation. Minimal behavioral context beyond the output format.
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, clear, and front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately concise.
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 download tool, the description states the core action and output format. However, without an output schema or annotations, it lacks details about the return value's structure, potential errors, and the role of the filename parameter. The nested pathParams object is only understood via the schema. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 tool description provides no information about the parameters (attachmentId and filename). Although the JSON schema has property descriptions, the low schema coverage (0%) means the description should compensate, but it does not mention which fields are needed or how they relate. The description adds no meaning beyond 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 a specific verb ('Download'), identifies the resource ('attachment file'), and specifies the output format ('Base64 encoded content'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like downloadAttachmentToLocalFile and downloadThumbnailAsBase64Content by naming the exact output encoding.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. The intended use is implied by the output format (Base64) and the tool name, but there is no direct guidance about choosing it over other download tools. No exclusions or alternative references 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the core action (upload) and the output (upload token), but omits details such as required permissions, error behavior, or whether the file is modified locally. 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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and includes no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's function.
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 upload tool with one structured parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential flow (local file → upload → token). However, it lacks context about the token's subsequent use or the optional filename behavior, which are relevant for full understanding. It is adequate but leaves room for improvement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% per the context signals, and the description provides no parameter-level information. It does not explain filePath or filename, leaving the schema's own property descriptions (if any) as the only source. The description adds no meaning beyond the tool's name for 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 ('upload'), names the resource ('attachment file'), and specifies both the source ('local file system') and destination ('Redmine'), plus the outcome ('get upload token'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like uploadAttachmentFromBase64Content (different source) and downloadAttachmentToLocalFile (opposite direction).
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 'from local file system' clearly establishes the intended context for using this tool rather than base64-based upload variants. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the context itself is unambiguous enough for basic decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![redmine-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/compasify/redmine-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/compasify/redmine-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![redmine-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/compasify/redmine-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/compasify/redmine-mcp-server)

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/compasify/redmine-mcp-server'

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