Simplicate MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools are organized by resource type (e.g., absence, contract, hours) and action (create, get, update, delete), making it easy to distinguish between them. The naming convention clearly indicates which resource and operation each tool handles.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, with verbs like create, get, update, delete, and search paired with specific nouns. All tools use snake_case consistently, and there are no deviations in naming style or structure across the entire set.
Tool Count2/5
With 59 tools, the count is excessive for typical MCP server purposes, making it heavy and potentially overwhelming for agents. While the server covers a broad domain (CRM, project management, invoicing), the large number of tools suggests over-fragmentation rather than a well-scoped, streamlined interface.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for the Simplicate domain, including resources like absences, contracts, hours, invoices, organizations, persons, projects, quotes, services, and tasks. There are no obvious gaps, with create, get, update, and delete operations available for most core entities, plus auxiliary tools like search and custom fields.
Average 2.4/5 across 59 of 59 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers nothing beyond the basic action. It doesn't indicate whether this is a write operation (implied by 'create'), what permissions might be required, whether the creation is reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.
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 technically concise with just three words, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful information. It's front-loaded in the sense that there's nothing after it, but that's because it provides no useful content at all.
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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only the most basic action statement with no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, no usage guidelines, and no information about what happens after creation. It's completely inadequate for the complexity of this 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 description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides absolutely no information about what the parameters mean, their formats, or their purposes. The agent would have to guess what 'absence_type', 'employee_id', 'start_date', and 'end_date' should contain and in what format.
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 absence record' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'absence record', but doesn't provide any meaningful differentiation from sibling tools like 'create_leave' or 'create_hours'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks specificity about what an absence record entails in this system.
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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this should be used instead of similar tools like 'create_leave', or any context about appropriate use cases. The agent would have no information about when this tool is the correct choice.
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 burden for behavioral disclosure but fails entirely. It doesn't indicate that this is a mutation operation, what permissions might be required, whether updates are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. The vague 'Update' gives no insight into actual behavior beyond the basic action implied by 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. While front-loaded, it lacks the substance needed to be truly 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?
For a mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, how to use it properly, what it returns, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves critical gaps for agent understanding.
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%, meaning neither parameter (invoice_id, data) has any documentation in the schema. The description adds no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't explain what invoice_id should contain, what fields can be in the data object, or any constraints. This leaves both parameters completely undocumented.
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 an invoice' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It lacks details about what aspects of an invoice can be updated or how this differs from other update tools like update_hours or update_project. While it identifies the resource (invoice), it provides no meaningful verb elaboration 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing invoice_id), differentiate from sibling tools like create_invoice or get_invoice, or specify appropriate contexts. This leaves the agent with no usage direction beyond the tool name.
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 offers nothing beyond the basic 'update' action. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to existing data not included in the update, whether changes are reversible, or what the expected response format might be. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a critical 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of severe under-specification. While technically 'front-loaded' (the entire description is the first and only phrase), it fails to provide the necessary information density. The single sentence doesn't earn its place by adding meaningful 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?
Given the complexity (mutation tool with 2 parameters including nested objects), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, how to use it, what it requires, or what it returns. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to properly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides zero information about what 'person_id' should contain or what the 'data' object structure should be. With 2 required parameters and nested objects, the agent has no guidance on how to properly format inputs for this tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a person' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what aspects of a person can be updated, what resources are involved, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'update_organization' or 'update_project'. The description fails to provide the specific verb+resource combination needed for clear understanding.
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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing person ID), when this should be used instead of create_person, or how it differs from other update tools in the sibling list. The agent receives zero contextual 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Create a new contract' without mentioning permissions required, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted language. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions.
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 creating a contract, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context on behavior, parameters, or outcomes, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
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%, meaning none of the three parameters (end_date, organization_id, start_date) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 a new contract' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'contract' but lacks detail on what a contract entails or how it differs from sibling tools like create_quote or create_invoice, leaving the purpose vague 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like create_quote and create_invoice, there's no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'create' without addressing permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single three-word phrase. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication, though it technically meets the criterion of being front-loaded with no wasted words.
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 (a mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 offers no information about parameters. It does not explain the meaning of 'amount', 'date', 'description', or 'project_id', nor their relationships, leaving all four parameters undocumented.
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 a cost entry' restates the tool name 'create_cost' with minimal variation, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'cost entry', but lacks detail on what a cost entry entails or how it differs from other 'create_' tools like 'create_invoice' or 'create_payment'.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or sibling tools, leaving the agent with no information on appropriate usage 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It does not disclose permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or any side effects like notifications, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a new invoice', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but it earns full points 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's complexity as a mutation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context on behavior, parameters, or usage, 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%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It does not explain what 'date' and 'organization_id' represent, their formats, or how they affect invoice creation, leaving both parameters undocumented.
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 a new invoice' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('invoice') but lacks detail on what an invoice entails in this context or how it differs from similar tools like 'create_quote' or 'create_payment', which are siblings in the server.
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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing organization, or differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_quote' or 'create_payment', leaving the agent with no 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve contracts' implies a read operation but provides no information about permissions required, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite having limit/offset parameters), what data is returned, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters.
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 extremely concise at just two words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring rules, conciseness evaluates whether every sentence earns its place, and this minimal description has no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 retrieval tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only a tautological statement of purpose with no behavioral context, parameter guidance, or differentiation from sibling tools. For a tool that presumably returns multiple contracts with pagination support, this description is completely 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters - not what they do, their purpose in pagination, acceptable ranges, or default values. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 'Retrieve contracts' restates the tool name 'get_contracts' in different words, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'contracts', but doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_contract' (singular) or provide any scope clarification about what contracts are retrieved.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'get_contracts' versus 'get_contract' (singular), 'search', or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
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 provides almost none. 'Retrieve invoices' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it supports pagination (though parameters suggest it might), what format invoices are returned in, or any rate limits. For a tool with 2 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure length perspective it's minimal with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, though far more content is needed for adequacy.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters work, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many alternatives, this description fails to provide necessary 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 description provides zero information about the 2 parameters (limit and offset). With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter details in the description, the agent has no semantic understanding of what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the retrieval. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 'Retrieve invoices' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_invoices'. It specifies the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'invoices', but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' (singular) or provide any scope information about what kind of invoices are retrieved. While it communicates the basic action, it lacks the specificity needed for clear distinction.
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. It doesn't mention when to use 'get_invoices' versus 'get_invoice' (singular), 'search', or other retrieval tools in the sibling list. There are no prerequisites, context requirements, or exclusions provided, leaving the agent with 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve timesheets' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, if there are rate limits, or how pagination works (despite having limit/offset parameters). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, with zero wasted language. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure is perfectly front-loaded with the core action and resource.
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 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to use the parameters, when to choose it over alternatives, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use 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 description mentions no parameters at all, while the schema has 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% schema description coverage. This leaves both parameters completely undocumented - the agent won't know what limit and offset mean, their expected values, or how they affect the retrieval 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 'Retrieve timesheets' states the basic action (retrieve) and resource (timesheets), but it's a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_timesheets'. It doesn't specify what kind of retrieval (list all, filtered, paginated) or distinguish this tool from other get_* siblings like get_hours or get_employees that might retrieve similar time-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 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. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_hours, get_employees, search), there's no indication of whether this retrieves all timesheets, filtered timesheets, or serves a specific purpose compared to other data retrieval tools in the system.
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 fails to do so. It does not indicate whether this is a safe or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this omission is critical and leaves the agent without necessary behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. While this brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it does not waste space or include redundant information, earning a high score for conciseness and structure alone.
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 (a mutation operation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters 'task_id' and 'data' are entirely undocumented in structured fields. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it does not explain what 'task_id' refers to, what 'data' should contain, or provide examples. With low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, this fails to meet even baseline expectations.
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 a task' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('task') but provides no differentiation from sibling tools like 'update_hours', 'update_invoice', etc., nor does it clarify what aspects of a task can be updated. This minimal statement fails to convey specific purpose 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'get_task'. Without any contextual cues, an agent cannot infer appropriate usage scenarios, making this score a 1 for complete lack of guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a payment record' implies a write operation but does not specify permissions, side effects (e.g., updating invoice status), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of under-specification, but the structure itself is optimal.
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 (a write operation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use parameters, or what to expect in return, making it inadequate for effective agent use.
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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (amount, invoice_id, method, payment_date) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as their purposes, formats (e.g., date format for payment_date), or constraints, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 a payment record' restates the tool name 'create_payment' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'payment record', but lacks detail on what a payment record entails or how it differs from other create operations like create_invoice or create_cost, failing to distinguish from siblings.
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, such as create_invoice for billing or get_payments for retrieval. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new task' implies a write operation but doesn't specify permissions required, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or typical response format. It lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Create a new task', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While under-specified, it efficiently states the core action without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and 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 a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a task is, how to use parameters, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects, failing to provide the necessary context 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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it adds no information beyond the tool name. The four parameters (assignee_id, due_date, project_id, title) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their purposes, formats, and constraints unclear. This fails to provide any meaningful guidance for parameter usage.
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 a new task' restates the tool name 'create_task' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'task' but lacks detail about what a task entails in this context, such as whether it's a project task, to-do item, or other type. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' or 'create_invoice' by resource type, it doesn't clarify the specific domain or system.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project or assignee, or compare it to sibling tools like 'update_task' or 'get_tasks'. There's no context about appropriate scenarios, making it entirely unhelpful for an agent deciding between this and other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update an organization' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe critical behaviors such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, making it front-loaded and free of unnecessary verbiage. However, this brevity borders on under-specification, as it sacrifices clarity for conciseness. While efficient, it lacks the detail needed for effective tool use.
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 (mutation operation with nested objects), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage context, or return values, leaving an agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly in a real-world scenario.
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%, meaning parameters 'organization_id' and 'data' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it does not explain what 'organization_id' refers to, what fields 'data' can contain, or examples of valid inputs. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate for this 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 an organization' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'update_organization' without adding any meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb 'update' and resource 'organization' but lacks detail on what aspects can be updated or how it differs from sibling tools like 'create_organization' or 'get_organization'. This minimal restatement provides no additional insight 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing organization), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'create_organization' for new organizations or 'get_organization' for retrieval. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate scenarios for invocation.
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 burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Create a new service' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, what the response contains, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise - just three words. While this could be seen as efficient, it's arguably under-specified rather than appropriately concise. However, it does put the essential information first with no wasted words, so it earns a relatively high score on this dimension alone.
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 mutation tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'service' is in this domain, doesn't document the parameters, doesn't describe behavior or side effects, and provides no context about the creation operation's outcome or requirements.
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%, meaning neither parameter (name, price) has any documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about these parameters - no explanation of what 'name' represents, what format 'price' should be in (currency, units, decimal precision), or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 'Create a new service' clearly states the action (create) and resource (service), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_contract' or 'create_project' - it only specifies the resource type without explaining what a 'service' means in this context compared to other creatable entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling 'create_' tools (create_absence, create_contract, create_cost, etc.), there's no indication of what constitutes a 'service' versus these other entities, nor any prerequisites or contextual constraints for service creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action 'delete' without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It does not address permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, error conditions, or response format, which are essential 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally structured, as it lacks front-loaded critical information like behavioral risks or usage context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for missing structured data by explaining parameters, behavioral implications, or expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'hours_id' undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'hours_id' represents (e.g., an identifier for a time entry) or its format, leaving the parameter semantics 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 'Delete hours entry' restates the tool name 'delete_hours' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'delete' and resource 'hours entry', but lacks detail on what constitutes an hours entry or the scope of deletion, failing to distinguish meaningfully from sibling tools like 'delete_project' or 'update_hours'.
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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing hours entry), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'update_hours' or 'get_hours_entry', leaving the agent without context for appropriate 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Update hours entry' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what validation occurs, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the description itself doesn't contain any redundant or unnecessary elements.
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 mutation tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description 'Update hours entry' is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what can be updated, how to structure updates, what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, or how this differs from related hours operations. The description fails to compensate for the lack of structured documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 2 parameters (hours_id and data), and the tool description provides no information about either parameter. The description doesn't explain what 'hours_id' refers to, what format it should be in, or what fields can be included in the 'data' object. With no parameter information in either schema or description, this falls well below the baseline expectation.
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 hours entry' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'update_hours' with minimal variation. While it indicates the verb 'update' and resource 'hours entry', it lacks specificity about what aspects of hours entries can be updated or the scope of the operation. Compared to sibling tools like 'create_hours' and 'delete_hours', it doesn't clearly differentiate beyond the basic action 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for managing hours (create_hours, delete_hours, get_hours, get_hours_entry), but the description doesn't indicate when update_hours is appropriate versus creating new entries or using read operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to other tools 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve documents' implies a read-only operation, but it fails to specify critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (hinted by 'limit' and 'offset' parameters but not explained), or what happens on errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification rather than optimal brevity, as it sacrifices necessary detail for conciseness. It earns a high score for structure but loses points for being too minimal to be fully helpful.
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 complexity of a retrieval tool with 2 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'documents' entails, how results are returned, or handle the parameter semantics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context with its 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 input schema has 2 parameters ('limit' and 'offset') with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description 'Retrieve documents' does not mention these parameters at all, failing to add any semantic meaning beyond the schema. This is inadequate given the low schema coverage, as the agent cannot infer how to use these parameters correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve documents' restates the tool name 'get_documents' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what 'documents' refers to (e.g., project documents, invoices, contracts) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_document' (singular), which suggests a broader retrieval operation but without clear distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it does not clarify if this is for listing all documents versus specific ones, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_document' (singular) or 'search'. The absence of context leaves the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination (though parameters hint at it), or what 'calendar/planning events' entails (e.g., format, time ranges). It's minimal and leaves key aspects unspecified.
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 very concise ('Get calendar/planning events'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to underspecification. Every sentence (here, just one) earns its place by stating the core action, but it could benefit from more detail.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and siblings that might overlap, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or output, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond basic 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which has parameters 'limit' and 'offset' with no descriptions. The description doesn't explain what these parameters do (e.g., pagination controls), their units, or default values, failing to address the coverage gap.
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 'Get calendar/planning events' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('calendar/planning events'), making the purpose clear. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., which calendar, whose events) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_tasks' or 'get_absences', which might also involve scheduling. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'get_tasks' and 'get_absences' that might overlap in planning contexts, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the name, not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or what happens if the entry doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks necessary context for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with a single sentence 'Get specific hours entry by ID', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it's arguably too brief, bordering on under-specification, but within the bounds of efficient communication.
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's complexity (simple retrieval), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error cases, or operational context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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%, with one parameter 'hours_id' undocumented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning by specifying 'by ID', but doesn't explain what 'hours_id' is (e.g., format, source, uniqueness) or provide examples. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but insufficiently for a tool with a required parameter.
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 'Get specific hours entry by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('hours entry'), but it's vague about what 'hours entry' represents (e.g., time tracking record, work log). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_hours' (plural) by specifying 'by ID', but doesn't fully differentiate from other retrieval tools like 'get_task' or 'get_project' in purpose.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid hours_id), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk retrieval), or direct alternatives like 'get_hours' for listing entries. The description implies usage for single-entry retrieval but lacks explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset params but not explained), or what happens on errors. It's minimal and lacks critical context for safe use.
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 very concise ('Retrieve mileage records')—a single phrase with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though arguably too brief given the lack of detail needed for other dimensions. Efficiency is high, but it borders on under-specification.
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's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the purpose in depth, usage context, parameter meanings, or expected return values. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic info. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It should explain what limit and offset do in the context of retrieving mileage records, but adds no value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve mileage records' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (mileage records), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_costs' or 'get_invoices' beyond the resource name, making it somewhat vague in context. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what 'mileage records' entail.
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 many sibling 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_costs', 'get_invoices'), but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for selection, though it's not misleading.
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. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), or response format. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately concise. However, it's front-loaded with the core action but lacks additional structure or details that could enhance clarity, keeping it simple yet under-specified.
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's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, parameter usage, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. This is inadequate for a data retrieval tool with pagination parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purposes are undocumented. The description 'Retrieve revenue records' adds no semantic information about these parameters, such as how they control pagination or data retrieval. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters ambiguous.
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 'Retrieve revenue records' states the basic action (retrieve) and resource (revenue records), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., all records, filtered, aggregated) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_sales' or 'get_invoices', which might retrieve related financial data. This makes it minimally adequate but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'get_sales' and 'get_invoices' that might handle similar financial data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions, relying solely on 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write operation, but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'mileage entry' but doesn't explain what the four parameters (date, distance, employee_id, project_id) mean or how they relate to creating such an entry, leaving them semantically unclear.
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 'Create mileage entry' clearly states the action (create) and resource (mileage entry), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_absence' or 'create_cost' beyond the resource name, and lacks specificity about what a 'mileage entry' entails in this 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, related tools like 'get_mileage', or context for creating mileage entries versus other types of entries in the system.
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. It only states 'Create a new sales quote' without any information about permissions required, whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits completely undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose efficiently.
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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or expected outcomes. For a tool that likely involves business logic and data persistence, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'organization_id' or 'subject' represent, their formats, or how they affect quote creation. With two parameters (one required) and zero coverage, this is a significant gap that the description doesn't address.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new sales quote'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_invoice' or 'create_contract' by specifying 'sales quote' as the resource type. However, it doesn't specify what a 'sales quote' entails in this system, leaving some ambiguity about the exact nature of the resource 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 like 'create_invoice' or 'create_contract'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an organization_id), appropriate contexts, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether it returns all absences or filtered subsets, pagination behavior (despite having limit/offset parameters), or what format the data returns. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.
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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick scanning.
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 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, or behavioral characteristics. The minimal description leaves too many open questions for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters (limit and offset), the description provides no information about what these parameters mean or how they affect the retrieval. The description doesn't mention pagination, result limiting, or any parameter usage, failing to compensate for the complete lack of schema 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 'Retrieve employee absences' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (employee absences), establishing the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_leave' which might retrieve similar absence/leave data, leaving ambiguity about scope or relationship between these tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_leave' and 'search' available, there's no indication whether this retrieves all absences, filtered absences, or serves a specific use case distinct from those other 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.
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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loaded to convey the core action and resource. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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's complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return format, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that retrieves data by ID, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which adds some meaning for the 'cost_id' parameter, but it doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., numeric, string), source, or constraints. This is insufficient to fully document the parameter beyond the basic schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get specific cost by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (cost), but it's vague about what 'cost' entails (e.g., expense record, pricing data) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_costs' (plural). It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity to distinguish it from related operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't explain if this is for retrieving a single cost record by its unique identifier, as opposed to using 'get_costs' for a list or 'search' for broader queries. The description implies usage by mentioning 'by ID' but offers no explicit 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 full burden but only states the action 'retrieve'. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (implied by limit/offset but not stated), or what the output format is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded as 'Retrieve project costs'. There is zero wasted text, making it efficient, though this conciseness contributes to under-specification 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 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or differentiation from alternatives, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'limit' and 'offset' control (e.g., pagination), their units, or default values. Since schema coverage is low and the description doesn't compensate, this falls below the baseline.
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 'Retrieve project costs' clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'project costs', which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'costs' include (e.g., budget, actual, forecast) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_cost' (singular) or 'get_revenue', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention if this is for listing all project costs, filtered views, or how it differs from 'get_cost' (singular) or other financial tools like 'get_revenue'. Without any context or exclusions, usage is unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not explained), or what data is returned. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two words, front-loaded and zero waste. It efficiently states the core action without unnecessary elaboration, though this brevity contributes to gaps 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for effective tool selection and invocation in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—parameters 'limit' and 'offset' are not mentioned or explained. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide necessary semantic context, scoring below the baseline.
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 'Retrieve employees' states the basic action (retrieve) and resource (employees), which is clear but minimal. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_employee' (singular) by implying a collection, but lacks specificity about scope or filtering compared to other get_* tools (e.g., 'get_absences', 'get_contracts'). It's not tautological but remains vague on what exactly is retrieved.
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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_employee' (singular) for individual retrieval or 'search' for filtered queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The description alone offers no usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the payments are returned in, if there are rate limits, or how pagination works (relevant given limit/offset parameters). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. While this brevity contributes to clarity gaps in other dimensions, it's structurally efficient and earns full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral traits like pagination or auth needs, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds no information about the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters—it doesn't explain they're for pagination, their units, default values, or constraints. This 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve invoice payments' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (invoice payments), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_invoice' or 'get_invoices' which might retrieve invoice data rather than payments, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'get_invoice' and 'get_invoices' that might handle related data, there's no indication of whether this tool is for payments specifically, when it should be preferred, or any prerequisites 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this tool lists all persons, requires authentication, has pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters but not stated), or returns structured data. For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words ('Retrieve contact persons'), with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This brevity is appropriate for a simple-sounding tool, though it may sacrifice completeness.
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's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'contact persons' entails (e.g., fields returned, data source), how parameters affect retrieval, or the expected output format. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, this lack of context makes it inadequate for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about the purpose and usage of limit and offset, which are critical for pagination.
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 'Retrieve contact persons' clearly states the verb ('retrieve') and resource ('contact persons'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_person' (singular vs. plural), leaving ambiguity about whether this retrieves a single person or multiple persons. The description is specific enough to avoid being a tautology 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_person' (for single persons) or 'search' (for filtered queries), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to choose between similar 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without any details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), doesn't explain the return value, and provides minimal parameter guidance. With no annotations and low schema coverage, it should do more to be fully helpful.
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 mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'quote_id' parameter in the schema, but schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter is undocumented. The description adds minimal semantic context (it's an ID) but doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get specific quote by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('quote'), and specifies retrieval by identifier. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_quotes' (plural) by emphasizing a single quote. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'get_' tools that also retrieve specific resources by ID (e.g., 'get_project'), making it slightly less specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid quote ID), contrast with 'get_quotes' for listing multiple quotes, or specify error conditions. The description implies usage for a known quote ID but lacks explicit 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on errors. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Retrieve sales records'—a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. While it may be under-specified, it earns full marks for brevity and structure without redundancy.
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's complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, output format, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for effective agent use without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'limit' and 'offset' do (e.g., pagination controls), their units, or default values. This leaves parameters semantically unclear.
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 'Retrieve sales records' states the basic action (retrieve) and resource (sales records), which provides a vague purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'sales records' include or distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_sale' (singular) or 'get_revenue', leaving ambiguity about scope and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With siblings like 'get_sale' (singular), 'get_revenue', and 'search', the description offers no context on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get' but not confirmed), error responses for invalid IDs, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for agent decision-making.
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 extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it sacrifices detail 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools. For a basic retrieval tool, more context on behavior and usage would improve agent effectiveness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'by ID' which clarifies the parameter's purpose, but doesn't specify ID format, constraints, or examples. This partially compensates for the low schema coverage but remains inadequate.
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 'Get specific service by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('service'), but it's vague about what 'Get' entails—does it retrieve details, metadata, or something else? It distinguishes from sibling 'get_services' (plural) by specifying 'by ID', but lacks precision about the scope of retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_services' (for listing) or 'get_project_services' (for context-specific services). The description implies usage for a known service ID, but there's no explicit advice on prerequisites, error handling, or sibling tool comparisons.
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. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify if this is safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits 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 extremely concise at two words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is appropriate given the tool's apparent simplicity, though it may sacrifice detail.
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 complexity (a retrieval tool with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'services catalog' entails, how results are returned, or handle the undocumented parameters. For a tool in a rich sibling set, this minimal description leaves too many gaps for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% description coverage, meaning their purpose is undocumented. The description 'Retrieve services catalog' adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't mention pagination, filtering, or sorting. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
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 'Retrieve services catalog' states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'services catalog', which gives a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_service' (singular) or 'get_default_services', leaving the scope ambiguous. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this retrieval operation from similar ones.
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. With siblings like 'get_service' (singular), 'get_default_services', and 'get_project_services', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This forces the agent to guess based on tool names alone, which is inadequate for reliable 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 burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, sorting), authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling. 'Search across' hints at a query-based retrieval, but lacks operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool and front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity contributes to gaps 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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to use this tool effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter semantics. It doesn't explain the 'query' parameter's format or the 'type' enum's purpose (project, organization, person). Without this, the agent lacks context on how to construct effective searches.
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 'Search across Simplicate resources' states the verb (search) and target (Simplicate resources), but is vague about scope and specificity. It doesn't distinguish this search tool from potential filtering capabilities in sibling tools like get_projects or get_organizations, nor does it specify what 'resources' encompasses beyond the type parameter's enum values.
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 the many get_* sibling tools (e.g., get_projects, get_organizations). The description implies a cross-resource search, but it doesn't clarify if this is for broad queries or when specific resource retrieval is preferred, 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create a new project' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language or redundancy. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'project' is in this system, how it relates to other entities (e.g., organizations, tasks), or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool with rich context, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 5 parameters well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Project budget', 'Start date (YYYY-MM-DD)'). The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new project' clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('project'), but it's vague about what a 'project' entails in this context and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'create_service'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain or 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'create_task', 'create_service', and 'update_project', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a generic statement with no usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like permanence, permissions needed, side effects, or error handling. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.
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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about what deletion entails, confirmation requirements, return values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (project_id), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 'Delete a project' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (project), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_hours. It's a minimal but accurate statement of purpose.
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 update_project or get_project, nor any prerequisites or warnings about deletion consequences. The description offers no usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by limit/offset parameters), authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when no tasks exist. The description is minimal and lacks essential operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.
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 complexity of a task retrieval tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'project tasks' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (limit and offset) well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 'Retrieve project tasks' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (project tasks), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_task' (singular) or 'search'. It doesn't specify whether this retrieves all tasks, tasks for specific projects, or tasks with certain 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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_task' (singular), 'search', or 'get_projects'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new hours entry' implies a write operation but lacks critical details: required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('create') and resource ('hours entry'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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 complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, parameter meanings, usage context, or return values. For a tool that creates data with multiple inputs, this minimal description leaves the agent under-informed.
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%, meaning all 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the name ('hours entry'). It doesn't explain what 'employee_id', 'hours', 'note', 'project_id', or 'start_date' represent, their formats, or constraints, failing to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('hours entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update_hours' or 'delete_hours' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'create_' tools (e.g., create_absence, create_project), which share the same verb but target different resources.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing employee/project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_hours' or 'get_hours'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for informed tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the missing structured information about parameters, behavior, or return values. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.
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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'leave_type' values are acceptable, what format dates should use, whether 'hours' is required or optional, or what 'employee_id' refers to.
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 verb ('Create') and resource ('leave/vacation entry'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_absence' by specifying 'leave/vacation' rather than general absence, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other create tools like 'create_hours' or 'create_task'.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over similar tools like 'create_absence', or any contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure, which is 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding, though it may be overly brief.
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 complexity of a creation tool with 4 parameters, low schema coverage (25%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral aspects, or expected outcomes, making it insufficient for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low at 25%, with only 'name' parameter documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain parameters like 'email', 'phone', or 'website', or their formats/constraints, leaving significant gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'organization', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_organization' by indicating creation rather than modification, but doesn't specify what an organization entails in this 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_organization' or 'get_organizations'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as permissions or system state, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a write operation ('Create') but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate emails, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or what to expect after creation, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, and the tool description adds no information about what 'email', 'family_name', 'first_name', or 'organization_id' mean or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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 clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('contact person'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_organization' or 'create_task' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'update_person' or 'get_person', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creating a contact person. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or response format. The description is minimal and fails to address key behavioral aspects beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, exemplifying ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, error cases), parameter specifics, and usage context. While minimalism might suffice for very basic tools, this leaves gaps that could hinder correct agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which implies the 'contract_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints. With one undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal semantic value, insufficient to bridge the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get specific contract by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('contract'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_contracts' (plural) by indicating retrieval of a single contract. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that might also retrieve by ID, keeping it at 4 rather than 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_contracts' for listing multiple contracts or 'search' for broader queries, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid contract ID. This lack of contextual direction limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. The description doesn't mention whether this is a safe operation or has 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key parameter requirement.
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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'document' means in this context, what information is returned, or how this tool fits into the broader system with many sibling tools. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only a parameter name with no semantic meaning. The description mentions 'by ID' which clarifies that 'document_id' should be an identifier, but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to obtain it, or provide any examples. This adds minimal value beyond the bare 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 action ('Get') and resource ('specific document by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_documents' by specifying retrieval of a single document rather than a list. However, it doesn't specify what type of document or from what system, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 'get_documents' for listing multiple documents or other get_* tools for different resources. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between this and 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (despite limit/offset parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral constraints. For a retrieval tool with pagination parameters, this leaves the agent guessing about how to properly invoke it and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'timesheet hours' but doesn't explain what 'limit' and 'offset' mean in this context (e.g., pagination controls, default values, or constraints). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the generic tool purpose, failing to address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieve timesheet hours' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (timesheet hours), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_hours_entry' or 'get_timesheets' by focusing specifically on timesheet hours rather than entries or timesheets as a whole. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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. With siblings like 'get_hours_entry', 'get_timesheets', and 'search', there's no indication of whether this is for bulk retrieval, filtered queries, or specific use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), response format, or whether it returns all invoice details. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get specific invoice') and includes the key constraint ('by ID'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, and parameter specifics. For a tool with one required parameter and no structured support, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'invoice_id' parameter in the schema, adding meaning that it's an identifier for lookup. However, it doesn't explain the ID format (e.g., numeric, string, UUID), source, or constraints, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get specific invoice by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('invoice'), and specifies the lookup method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_invoices' (plural) which presumably lists multiple invoices. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_invoice' or 'create_invoice', missing full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention when to choose 'get_invoice' over 'get_invoices' (e.g., for a single known invoice ID vs. listing/searching), nor does it reference other invoice-related tools like 'update_invoice' or 'create_invoice'. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieve' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the entries return in, if there are rate limits, or how pagination works (despite having limit/offset parameters). This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.
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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient terminology. Every word earns its place in this minimal description.
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 retrieval tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'leave/vacation entries' encompass, how results are structured, or provide any context about the data source or access requirements. The agent lacks critical information for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, providing only type information for 'limit' and 'offset'. The description adds no parameter semantics whatsoever - it doesn't explain what these parameters do, their units, default values, or constraints. For a tool with two undocumented parameters, this is inadequate compensation.
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 'Retrieve leave/vacation entries' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (leave/vacation entries), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'get_absences' which might retrieve similar absence data, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_absences' or 'get_calendar_events'. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on invalid input. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, return values, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use in a complex environment.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'by ID' without explaining what the 'organization_id' parameter represents (e.g., format, source, or constraints). It adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('specific organization by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_organizations' (plural), which likely retrieves multiple organizations, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_organizations' or 'update_organization'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid organization ID, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset parameters), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the response format looks like. For a list tool with parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient for an AI agent 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 a tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter usage, return format, pagination behavior, or differentiation from similar tools. For a list operation in a CRM context, this leaves too many gaps for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides no information about the two parameters (limit and offset), and schema description coverage is 0%. While 'retrieve CRM organizations' implies a list operation, it doesn't explain that limit controls result count or offset enables pagination. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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 'Retrieve CRM organizations' clearly states the verb (retrieve) and resource (CRM organizations), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_organization' (singular) by implying a list operation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other retrieval tools like 'get_persons' or 'get_projects'.
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 doesn't mention when to choose 'get_organizations' over 'get_organization' (singular), 'search', or other list tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or typical use cases for retrieving organizations in the CRM context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'services/items' means, how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. For a data retrieval tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is used to scope the query to a specific project, but it doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides. Since there's only one parameter, a score of 4 reflects adequate but not exceptional clarity.
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 'Get services/items for a specific project' clearly states the action (get) and resource (services/items), but it's vague about what 'services/items' entails and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_services' or 'get_default_services'. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone among many 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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this is paginated (despite limit/offset parameters), what authentication is needed, rate limits, or what format the quotes are returned in. Significant behavioral details are missing.
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 extremely concise at just two words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'sales quotes' encompasses, how results are returned, or provide any context about the retrieval operation. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The two parameters (limit, offset) are completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving their purpose and usage ambiguous. The description adds zero 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 'Retrieve sales quotes' clearly states the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('sales quotes'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_quote' (singular) or 'get_sales', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'get_quote' (singular), 'get_sales', or 'search'. There's no mention of 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe and effective usage.
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 extremely concise with no wasted words—a single phrase that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) but lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format, error cases, or usage context. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more detail is needed to ensure reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'task_id' parameter, but doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or source (e.g., UUID, numeric). With 1 undocumented parameter, the description adds minimal 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('specific task by ID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_tasks' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single task. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'get' entails (e.g., fetch details, retrieve metadata), which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID), contrast with 'get_tasks' for listing multiple tasks, or specify error conditions (e.g., invalid ID). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'custom field definitions' entail, the return format, or any error conditions. For a retrieval tool in a context with many siblings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'model' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('custom field definitions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other 'get_' siblings like get_organizations or get_persons beyond the resource type, missing explicit 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., get_organizations, get_persons), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for retrieving custom fields versus other data types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a read operation ('Get'). It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid, which is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick comprehension.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, and behavioral context, making it inadequate for a read operation that likely involves data retrieval and potential failures.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which adds meaning to the 'employee_id' parameter, clarifying it's an identifier. However, it doesn't specify format, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('specific employee by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_employees' (plural) which likely retrieves multiple employees, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to similar tools like 'get_employees' or 'get_person', leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what happens with invalid IDs (e.g., errors or null returns), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive person data.
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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loading the core purpose without any fluff. Every word ('Get', 'specific', 'person', 'ID') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., person attributes), error handling, or authentication needs, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively in a real-world scenario.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the single parameter 'person_id' in the schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't add details like ID format (e.g., numeric vs. string), validation rules, or examples. It provides minimal semantic context beyond what's inferred from the parameter 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('specific person by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_persons' (plural) or 'get_employee', which suggests it retrieves a single person rather than a list or employee-specific data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_persons' for listing multiple people or 'get_employee' for employee-specific data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid person ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't clarify what 'details' include, whether it's a read-only operation, what happens with invalid IDs, or if authentication is required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the resource and lookup method.
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 is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured project data. It doesn't hint at the return format, error conditions, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively beyond the basic parameter.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the parameter is required for lookup, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific project by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_projects' (plural) or 'update_project', but the specificity of 'by ID' implies it retrieves a single entity rather than a list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_projects' for listing multiple projects or 'update_project' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a valid project ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns structured data, handles errors, or has rate limits. It lacks details on what 'sale' entails (e.g., fields returned) or any side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence ('Get specific sale by ID') with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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's complexity (simple retrieval with 1 parameter), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error handling, return format, or how it fits within the broader context of sibling tools, making it inadequate for full agent understanding without additional inference.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying that the 'sale_id' parameter is used to retrieve a 'specific sale'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's type definition. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, constraints, or examples, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage, aligning with the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get specific sale by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('sale'), and specifies the lookup method ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_sales' (plural) by indicating retrieval of a single sale. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'get_' tools that also retrieve specific items by ID (e.g., 'get_contract', 'get_invoice'), making it a 4 rather than 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 doesn't mention siblings like 'get_sales' (for listing multiple sales) or 'search' (for broader queries), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description alone, with no explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete behavioral context, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the update entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), potential side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies data, more completeness is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('project_id' and 'data'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'data' contains update fields, which is already clear from the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_project' (creation vs. update) and 'delete_project' (deletion vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_hours' or 'update_invoice'.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID), exclusions (e.g., what fields can't be updated), or comparisons to other update tools (e.g., 'update_hours' for time-related updates). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'default services configuration' entails (e.g., global vs. user-specific). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices 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?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'default services configuration' returns, how it differs from other 'get' tools, or any behavioral context. For a retrieval tool in a system with many similar siblings, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't contradict the schema. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as the description appropriately focuses on purpose without redundant param info.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get default services configuration' clearly states the action (Get) and resource (default services configuration). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_services' or 'get_project_services' by specifying 'default' configuration, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.
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 'get_services' or 'get_project_services'. The description implies retrieval of default settings but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves a list but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior (implied by parameters but not explained), error conditions, or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a list of all projects') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list-retrieval tool and doesn't include unnecessary details.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple list retrieval), 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., pagination, return structure) that would be helpful for an agent, especially without annotations. It's complete enough to understand the basic purpose but leaves operational details implicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('limit' and 'offset') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying a list retrieval. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately, but the description doesn't enhance understanding of parameter use or interactions.
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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('list of all projects'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_project' (singular) by specifying it returns a list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list-retrieval tools like 'get_organizations' or 'get_tasks' beyond the resource name.
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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search' (which might filter projects) or 'get_project' (singular), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/daanno/simplicate-mcp'

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