ABAP-ADT-API MCP-Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation2/5
The tool set has significant overlap and ambiguity, particularly in areas like debugging (multiple 'debugger' tools with similar purposes), refactoring (evaluate/execute/preview patterns for extractMethod and rename), and Git operations (several 'git' tools that could be confused). While descriptions provide some differentiation, the sheer number of tools (128) exacerbates the problem, making it difficult for an agent to reliably choose the correct tool without deep domain knowledge.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming conventions are mixed, with a tendency toward camelCase (e.g., 'abapDocumentation', 'adtCompatibiliyGraph') but also snake_case (e.g., 'code_completion', 'pretty_printer_setting') and inconsistent verb usage (e.g., 'activateByName' vs. 'createObject' vs. 'getObjectSource'). While some patterns emerge (like evaluate/execute/preview for refactoring), the overall set lacks a uniform naming scheme, leading to readability issues.
Tool Count2/5
With 128 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, indicating poor scoping. This many tools suggests the server is trying to cover too many disparate functionalities (e.g., ABAP development, debugging, Git operations, transport management, ATC checks), which could overwhelm agents and lead to confusion. A more modular approach with fewer, more focused tools would be more appropriate.
Completeness4/5
For the broad domain of ABAP development and system management, the tool set appears quite comprehensive, covering areas like object lifecycle (create, activate, delete), debugging, syntax checking, refactoring, Git integration, transport handling, and testing. However, minor gaps might exist, such as limited error handling or monitoring tools, but overall, the surface is well-covered for the intended purpose.
Average 2.5/5 across 128 of 128 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Runs a class' gives minimal insight into what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it executes code, triggers a process, returns results, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or handles errors. The description doesn't mention execution environment, output format, error conditions, or any runtime characteristics that would help an agent understand how to use it effectively.
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 only three words, this description suffers from severe under-specification rather than effective brevity. The single sentence doesn't front-load critical information or structure content for clarity. It's so minimal that it fails to communicate essential details, making the conciseness detrimental rather than helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the sibling tools (development/execution environment), no annotations, no output schema, and a parameter with 0% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'running' entails, what results to expect, error handling, or any contextual information needed for proper tool selection and invocation in what appears to be a sophisticated development toolset.
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, providing only a parameter name 'className' with no semantic context. The description 'Runs a class' doesn't add any meaningful information about this parameter—what constitutes a valid class name, format expectations, or how it influences execution. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation from the description, this leaves the agent guessing about proper 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 'Runs a class' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'runClass' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what 'running a class' means in this context, what type of class it refers to, or what the expected outcome is. While it includes a verb ('Runs') and resource ('class'), it lacks the detail needed to distinguish this tool from potential alternatives or understand its actual function.
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. With 100+ sibling tools including various execution, testing, and analysis tools (like runQuery, unitTestRun, syntaxCheckCode), there's no indication of what makes 'runClass' distinct or appropriate for specific scenarios. The description fails to mention prerequisites, expected context, or any comparison to related 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. 'Find symbol definition' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it's a read-only lookup, requires authentication, has side effects, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with 7 parameters and no 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.
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 comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's front-loaded (the entire description is the purpose), it 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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 5 required), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about behavior, parameters, return values, or usage context. For a tool that appears to locate symbol definitions in what seems like a code analysis context, this leaves 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.
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 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters—not what 'url', 'source', 'line', 'startCol', 'endCol', 'implementation', or 'mainProgram' mean or how they should be used. This leaves all parameters completely undocumented, which is unacceptable for a tool with this complexity.
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 'Find symbol definition' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'findDefinition'. It provides a verb ('Find') and resource ('symbol definition'), but lacks specificity about what kind of symbols, in what context, or how this differs from similar tools like 'searchObject' or 'codeCompletion' in the sibling list. The purpose is vague and doesn't help distinguish this tool from alternatives.
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 like 'searchObject', 'codeCompletion', 'ddicElement', and 'objectStructure' that might relate to finding definitions or symbols, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent guessing about 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 discloses no behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with 4 required 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, 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.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 required parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to provide necessary context for tool invocation, such as parameter usage, behavioral expectations, or output details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain what 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', or 'column' represent, their expected formats, or how they interact. For 4 undocumented parameters, this is insufficient.
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 'Get code completion suggestions' restates the tool name 'codeCompletion' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('code completion suggestions') but lacks detail on scope or mechanism, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' or 'codeCompletionFull'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'codeCompletionElement' or 'codeCompletionFull'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, 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.
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. The description only states what the tool does ('retrieves'), but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are structured, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves'), though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness. Every word serves a purpose in the minimal description provided.
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 a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'code completion element information' entails, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or how it differs from similar tools. The minimal description fails to provide necessary context 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?
The description provides no information about any of the 4 required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving code completion element information. This leaves 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 'Retrieves code completion element information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'codeCompletionElement' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'code completion element information', but doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionFull', leaving the specific purpose unclear.
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. There are multiple related tools in the sibling list (codeCompletion, codeCompletionFull), but the description doesn't indicate what differentiates this tool from those, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the expected output format might be. The description provides zero behavioral context 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure structural perspective, there's zero wasted language. Every word contributes to the minimal statement of purpose, even though that statement is inadequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool actually does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, no behavioral context, and no differentiation from the similar 'codeCompletion' tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
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 no information about any of the 5 required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column, patternKey). With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. The agent would have no semantic understanding of what values to provide for code completion.
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 'Performs full code completion' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'codeCompletionFull'. It doesn't specify what type of code completion, what programming languages or environments it supports, or what distinguishes 'full' completion from the sibling 'codeCompletion' tool. The description is too vague to understand the actual 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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool named 'codeCompletion' (without the 'Full' suffix), there's clearly a need to differentiate usage scenarios, but the description offers no help. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for this tool.
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 detailing permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 7 parameters, as it fails to inform the agent about critical operational aspects.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise. It is front-loaded with the core action, 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.
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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral implications, or return values, making it insufficient for effective agent operation.
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 7 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'objtype', 'name', or 'parentPath', leaving their purposes and formats completely unspecified, which severely hinders correct tool invocation.
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 ABAP object' restates the tool name 'createObject' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('ABAP object') but lacks detail on what constitutes an ABAP object or how this differs from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'createTestInclude'.
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, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios compared to other creation-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Deletes breakpoints' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects debugging sessions, error conditions (e.g., invalid breakpoint), or side effects. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to predict outcomes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it uses only two words, it fails to convey necessary information about the tool's operation, context, or distinctions. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here, the brevity results in a lack of useful content, making it inefficient for an agent's understanding.
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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive operation implied by 'deletes'), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, error handling, dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing a debugger session), or how it fits within the debugger workflow. For a mutation tool with multiple inputs, this minimal description is inadequate.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters documented (e.g., 'breakpoint', 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId'). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation without needing description supplementation.
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 'Deletes breakpoints' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints'. It provides no additional specificity about what breakpoints are deleted (e.g., all breakpoints, specific ones by ID, in a certain context) or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'. The purpose is technically stated but lacks differentiation and detail.
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 active debugger session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' for adding breakpoints or 'debuggerDeleteListener' for removing listeners. Without any context, an agent cannot determine 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Sets breakpoints' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens to existing breakpoints. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this lack of detail is inadequate and leaves critical operational 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While 'Sets breakpoints' is concise, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured. The description lacks front-loaded critical information and consists of a single, overly vague sentence that does not earn its place by adding value. For a complex tool with 10 parameters, this brevity results in insufficient guidance, making it ineffective despite its short length.
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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, usage guidelines, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps in understanding. For a mutation tool in a debugging context with many sibling tools, this minimal description does not provide enough context for reliable agent operation.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between 'debuggingMode' and 'breakpoints' or typical usage patterns. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the existing 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 'Sets breakpoints' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' without adding meaningful context. While it does specify the verb ('Sets') and resource ('breakpoints'), it lacks any detail about what breakpoints are being set, in what context, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerSaveSettings'. This minimal statement fails to provide the specificity needed for effective tool selection.
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 any prerequisites, context for use, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerListen'. Without this information, an AI agent cannot determine appropriate usage scenarios, leading to potential misuse or confusion in a debugging workflow.
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. 'Applies fix edits' is extremely vague—it does not indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how it handles errors, or what the expected outcome is. For a tool with two required parameters and no output schema, this lack of detail is inadequate and fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the tool's action, though this comes at the cost of being overly vague. In terms of structure and brevity, it meets the criteria for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool does, how to use it, what the parameters mean, or what to expect as a result. This lack of information makes it difficult for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or understand its role among many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the parameters 'proposal' and 'source'. The description 'Applies fix edits' adds no meaningful information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact. This leaves both parameters entirely undocumented, which is insufficient for a tool with two required inputs.
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 'Applies fix edits' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fixEdits' without providing meaningful clarification. It mentions a verb ('applies') and a resource ('fix edits'), but 'fix edits' is vague and doesn't specify what is being fixed or edited. Compared to sibling tools like 'fixProposals' or 'renameExecute', this lacks differentiation and specificity about the actual operation.
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. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and it does not reference any sibling tools (e.g., 'fixProposals' or 'syntaxCheckCode') that might be related. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed decision about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or has side effects. For a 4-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this complete lack of behavioral context is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise with a single three-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified, what's present is efficiently structured.
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 (4 required parameters), zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what fix proposals are, what the parameters mean, what authentication is needed, or what format the results take. This leaves the agent unable to properly understand or 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (url, source, line, column) are documented in the schema. The description provides zero information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving fix proposals. This leaves the agent with completely undocumented required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves fix proposals' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'fixProposals' with a generic verb. It doesn't specify what kind of fix proposals (e.g., code fixes, ATC issues, syntax errors) or from what system. While it distinguishes from many siblings by focusing on 'fix proposals', it lacks the specificity needed for clear differentiation from tools like 'fixEdits' or 'atcExemptProposal'.
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, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'fixEdits' or 'atcExemptProposal'. The agent receives no help in determining when this specific retrieval tool is appropriate versus other proposal-related 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 that the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't describe what fragment mappings are, how they're returned (e.g., format, structure), any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool with three required 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, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves'), though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word serves a purpose, even if that purpose is insufficient.
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 (three required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what fragment mappings are, how to use the parameters, what the tool returns, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool with undocumented inputs and no structured output definition, this minimal 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 input schema has three required parameters (url, type, name) with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to retrieving fragment mappings. It 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 'Retrieves fragment mappings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fragmentMappings' with a generic verb. It doesn't specify what fragment mappings are, what resource they belong to, or how they differ from similar operations. While it includes a verb ('retrieves'), it lacks specificity about the domain or context, making it only marginally better than a pure tautology.
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 any prerequisites, constraints, or relationships with sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' that might handle related data. There's no indication of appropriate contexts or exclusions for its use.
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. 'Search for objects' gives no insight into whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. It lacks essential context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only three words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load critical details, leaving the agent with minimal actionable information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity, making this ineffective.
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 implied by a search tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'objects' refer to, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer usage correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'query', 'objType', and 'max'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as examples or usage tips. However, with high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
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 'Search for objects' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'searchObject' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what types of objects are being searched, in what context, or how this differs from other search-related tools like 'searchPackage' or 'findDefinition' among the 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. With many sibling tools that involve searching or finding (e.g., 'searchPackage', 'findDefinition', 'findObjectPath'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions to help an agent choose appropriately.
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. 'Evaluates unit test results' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it modifies data, what the output format is, or any side effects. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap that leaves the agent unable to predict the tool's effects or requirements.
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, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load critical information about the tool's purpose or usage. In conciseness scoring, brevity without substance doesn't earn high marks—the description wastes its limited space on a tautological statement rather than providing value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the rich ecosystem of sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'evaluation' entails, what results are returned, how it differs from related testing tools, or any behavioral characteristics. For a tool that presumably analyzes test outcomes, this minimal description leaves too many unanswered questions for effective 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%, with both parameters ('clas' and 'flags') documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no parameter details in the description. The description doesn't compensate for any gaps, but none exist in the 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 'Evaluates unit test results' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'unitTestEvaluation' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't specify what kind of evaluation is performed (e.g., analyzing test coverage, checking pass/fail status, generating reports) or what resources are involved. While it includes a verb ('evaluates') and object ('unit test results'), it lacks the detail needed to distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'unitTestRun' or 'unitTestOccurrenceMarkers'.
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 (e.g., needing to run tests first with 'unitTestRun'), context (e.g., after test execution), or exclusions (e.g., not for creating tests). With sibling tools like 'unitTestRun' and 'unitTestOccurrenceMarkers' present, the absence of any comparative guidance leaves the agent guessing about 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Find') without detailing output format, error handling, permissions, or side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase, 'Find symbol references', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but it meets the criterion of being appropriately sized for its minimal content.
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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on purpose, usage, behavior, and parameters, making it insufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters 'url', 'line', and 'column' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, such as what 'url' refers to or how 'line' and 'column' are used, 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 'Find symbol references' restates the tool name 'usageReferences' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('Find') and target ('symbol references') but lacks detail on what constitutes a 'symbol' or the scope of the search, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject'.
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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject', 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.
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. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema). This leaves the agent with insufficient information about 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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core action ('Retrieves'). There's no wasted language, though this brevity contributes to the overall inadequacy by omitting necessary details.
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 implied by the parameter (an array of 'references'), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use the parameter, or what to expect in return, 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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, documenting only that 'references' is a required array without explaining what it should contain. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't clarify what 'references' are, their expected format, or examples of valid values. For a single undocumented parameter, this is a significant 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 'Retrieves usage reference snippets' restates the tool name 'usageReferenceSnippets' with a generic verb ('retrieves'), making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'usage reference snippets' are, what resource they come from, or how they differ from the sibling tool 'usageReferences' (which appears to serve a similar purpose). This provides minimal differentiation.
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. With a sibling tool named 'usageReferences' that likely handles related functionality, there's no indication of when this specific tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools should be considered instead.
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. However, it offers no information about what the tool does behaviorally—such as whether it's a read-only operation, what data it returns, potential side effects, or any constraints (e.g., authentication needs, rate limits). This leaves the agent with no insight into 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.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise ('Performs ADT core discovery') but under-specified—it's too brief to be informative, lacking essential details. While it avoids unnecessary words, its brevity results in insufficient content, making it inefficient for guiding an agent. It is front-loaded but fails to earn its place with meaningful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (likely involving system discovery) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'ADT core discovery' entails, what results to expect, or any operational context, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate—it neither adds nor detracts value in this dimension, as there is nothing to compensate for.
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 'Performs ADT core discovery' is tautological—it essentially restates the tool name 'adtCoreDiscovery' without specifying what 'ADT core discovery' actually does. It lacks a clear verb-resource combination (e.g., 'retrieves system metadata' or 'lists available services') and does not differentiate from siblings like 'adtDiscovery', leaving the purpose vague.
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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools (e.g., how it differs from 'adtDiscovery'). This absence of usage instructions makes it unhelpful for an agent deciding between 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. However, it only states the action ('Find path') without any details on behavior, such as whether it's a read-only operation, what happens if the object isn't found, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just four words, which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it lacks necessary details to understand the tool's purpose and usage. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the brevity comes at the cost of clarity, making it minimally adequate but not 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 tool's complexity (inferred from sibling tools like object management), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the 'path' output entails (e.g., a string, structured data) or any behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but unclear functionality among many siblings, more detail is needed to make it usable, resulting in a low score.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'objectUrl' documented as 'URL of the object to find path for'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's clarity.
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 'Find path for an object' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'findObjectPath'. It lacks specificity about what 'path' means (e.g., file path, URL path, object hierarchy) and what type of 'object' is involved. While it includes a verb ('Find') and resource ('object'), it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'searchObject' or 'objectStructure', making it vague and minimally informative.
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 any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it's for locating objects in a repository, file system, or database. With many sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition', there's no indication of how this tool differs, 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.
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. 'Checks' is vague and doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, what it returns, whether it requires authentication (though parameters suggest optional credentials), or any side effects. For a tool with 3 parameters including sensitive ones like password, this lack of behavioral context is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Checks') and resource ('a Git repository'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word serves a minimal but clear purpose, 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.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters including sensitive authentication data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'checking' entails, what the return value might be, how authentication parameters interact, or any error conditions. For a tool that could involve network operations and credential handling, this minimal 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.
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 all parameters (repo, user, password) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, relationships, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Checks a Git repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'checkRepo'. It doesn't specify what 'checks' means operationally (e.g., validates existence, verifies connectivity, examines status) or what resource is being checked beyond the generic 'Git repository'. While it mentions the type of resource, it lacks the specific verb clarity needed for an AI agent to understand the exact operation.
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. There are multiple Git-related sibling tools (gitCreateRepo, gitPullRepo, gitRepos, gitUnlinkRepo, pushRepo, remoteRepoInfo, stageRepo, switchRepoBranch), but the description doesn't indicate how 'checkRepo' differs from these or in what context it should be selected. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative information is provided.
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. 'Accesses' is ambiguous—it could imply read-only retrieval, modification, or other actions. The description fails to specify permissions needed, side effects, rate limits, or return format, offering no behavioral context beyond the vague verb.
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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than conciseness, but structurally it earns full marks for being direct and minimal.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the tool's purpose, behavior, or usage context, leaving significant gaps for a tool with one parameter and no structured safety or output information, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'path' parameter documented as 'The path to the DDIC element.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without extra value from the description.
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 'Accesses the DDIC repository' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'ddicRepositoryAccess' without specifying what 'accesses' means in this context. It lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'retrieve', 'modify', 'list') and resource details, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'ddicElement' or 'checkRepo'.
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 sibling tools like 'ddicElement' and 'checkRepo' that might overlap in functionality, there is no explicit or implied context for usage, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Attaches the debugger' gives no information about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what side effects occur, what happens if attachment fails, or what the expected response looks like. For a tool with 4 parameters that likely initiates debugging sessions, this is critically insufficient behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification, from a pure conciseness perspective, there's zero wasted language. Every word ('Attaches the debugger') directly relates to the tool's function, and there's no unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.
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 debugger attachment tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling debugger tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'attaching' means operationally, what happens after attachment, how this relates to other debugger operations, what permissions are required, or what the expected outcome is. The description fails to provide the contextual information needed to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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 all parameters (debuggingMode, debuggeeId, user, dynproDebugging). The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters - it doesn't explain what debugging modes are available, what a debuggee represents, why user identification is needed, or when dynproDebugging should be enabled. With complete schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without parameter details in the description.
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 'Attaches the debugger' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerAttach'. It doesn't specify what resource the debugger attaches to, what 'attaching' actually means operationally, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen, debuggerSetBreakpoints, or debuggerStep. The purpose is stated but lacks specificity and differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. With multiple sibling debugger tools available (debuggerListen, debuggerSetBreakpoints, debuggerStep, debuggerVariables, etc.), there's no indication of whether this is an initialization step, a configuration action, or something that should precede or follow other debugger operations. No prerequisites, sequencing, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It does not explain what locking does (e.g., prevents modifications, requires permissions), its effects (e.g., reversible via 'unLock'), or any constraints like rate limits. This leaves the agent with minimal actionable information.
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-loading the core action without any wasted text. It is appropriately sized for such a minimal statement, though this conciseness contributes to its overall 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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, or output, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly in context with sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'accessMode'), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone, as the description adds no semantic value beyond it.
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 'Lock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'lock', providing no additional specificity about what type of object or what locking entails. It fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unLock' beyond the basic verb, offering no clarity on the resource 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 Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as its sibling 'unLock' or other object-management tools like 'createObject' or 'deleteObject'. The description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are destructive or reversible, error handling, or side effects. It lacks critical context like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens to existing configurations.
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 'Sets transport configurations.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. Every word serves a minimal purpose, but the description is arguably too sparse for effective tool selection.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what transport configurations are, the impact of the operation, expected outcomes, or error conditions. Given the complexity implied by three required parameters and the presence of related sibling tools, this minimal description fails to provide adequate context for safe and correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (uri, etag, config) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain their relationships, formats, or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description contributes zero value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets transport configurations' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'setTransportsConfig' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'Sets' and resource 'transport configurations', but fails to clarify what transport configurations are, what fields they contain, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' or 'getTransportConfiguration'.
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 sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' (likely for initial creation) and 'getTransportConfiguration' (likely for retrieval), there's no indication of whether this tool is for updates, replacements, or specific scenarios. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual advice are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Releases' suggests a state-changing operation, but the description doesn't clarify what 'releasing' entails (e.g., making transport available for movement, completing a workflow step, or freeing resources), what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what side effects occur. This leaves the agent guessing about critical behavioral traits.
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, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. For conciseness alone, it's 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 complexity of a state-changing operation with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'release' means, when to use it, what happens after release, or how it differs from other transport operations. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to given complete schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation through the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Releases a transport' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'transportRelease' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'releases' and resource 'a transport', but doesn't explain what 'releasing' means operationally or distinguish this tool from sibling transport tools like createTransport, transportDelete, or transportInfo.
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. There are multiple sibling transport-related tools (createTransport, transportDelete, transportInfo, transportAddUser, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when release is appropriate versus deletion, modification, or querying. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it offers no information about what the tool does behaviorally—whether it's a read or write operation, what permissions are required, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output might look like. The phrase 'performs ADT discovery' is too vague to infer any behavioral traits.
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 ('Performs ADT discovery.'). It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient to parse. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but as per the scoring criteria, it earns full points for being appropriately sized with zero redundant content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool definition is highly incomplete. The description fails to explain what ADT discovery involves, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. For a tool with no parameters, the description should at least clarify the purpose and output, but it does not, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its use.
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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, meaning there are no parameters to document. In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there is no need for the description to compensate for missing parameter information. The description doesn't add parameter details, but none are required.
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 'Performs ADT discovery' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'adtDiscovery' without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what ADT discovery entails, what resources are involved, or what the outcome is. While it mentions the action ('performs'), it lacks specificity about what is being discovered or how this differs from sibling tools like 'adtCoreDiscovery'.
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 any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, nor does it differentiate it from similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'adtCoreDiscovery'). Without such information, an AI agent cannot determine 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states the action ('Requests') without any details on permissions required, whether the request is mutable or read-only, expected response format, error conditions, or other behavioral traits. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to understand how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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, 'Requests an ATC exemption.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-informative, it is not verbose or poorly structured, earning 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 the complexity of requesting an exemption (likely a mutation with side effects), the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context. It fails to cover behavioral aspects, usage guidelines, or output expectations, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation by an AI agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'proposal' documented as 'The ATC exemption proposal.' The description does not add any further meaning beyond this, such as explaining what constitutes a valid proposal or its structure. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Requests an ATC exemption' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'atcRequestExemption' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'Requests' and resource 'ATC exemption', but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcChangeContact', leaving the purpose vague and undifferentiated.
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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' and 'atcChangeContact' present, there is no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be selected over them.
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 behavior. It only states the action ('Get') without details on permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with no structured safety hints, as it leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, 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 lacks details on what 'class includes structure' entails, how results are returned, or behavioral context. For a tool with one parameter but unknown complexity, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full 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 parameter 'clas' documented as 'The class name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter 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 'Get class includes structure' restates the tool name 'classIncludes' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('class includes structure'), but lacks detail on what 'includes structure' means or how it differs from sibling tools like 'classComponents' or 'objectStructure', leaving the purpose vague.
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 many sibling tools (e.g., 'classComponents', 'objectStructure'), the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, 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.
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. 'Saves debugger settings' implies a mutation operation, but it fails to describe critical traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if the settings are persisted globally or per-session, what happens on success or error, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding.
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 'Saves debugger settings.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness, but in terms of structure and efficiency, it scores highly as every word directly relates to the tool's purpose 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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and what to expect upon execution. While the schema covers the single parameter, the overall context for invoking this tool—such as when it's applicable, what it affects, and how it interacts with other debugger tools—is insufficient, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'settings' documented as 'The debugger settings.' The description does not add any meaningful semantics beyond this, such as format examples, constraints, or usage context. Since the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for nor enhances the schema's information.
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 'Saves debugger settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerSaveSettings' without adding meaningful clarification. It specifies the verb 'saves' and resource 'debugger settings', but lacks distinction from sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue', which also involve setting debugger configurations. This minimal phrasing fails to provide specific context about what 'settings' entails or how this operation differs from others.
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 any prerequisites, context for saving settings (e.g., during debugging sessions), or exclusions. Given the presence of sibling tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' and 'debuggerSetVariableValue', which might overlap in functionality, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on selecting the appropriate tool for managing debugger configurations.
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. 'Performs a debugger step' fails to describe any behavioral traits—it does not indicate whether this is a read or write operation, its side effects, permissions required, or expected outcomes. For a tool likely involved in debugging execution, this lack of transparency is a significant gap, leaving the agent unaware of critical 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Performs a debugger step.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it may be under-informative, it scores high on conciseness as every word contributes directly to stating the tool's action without redundancy or fluff.
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 (involving debugging steps), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a debugger step does, the types of steps available, or the return values. With 100% schema coverage for inputs but no behavioral context, the description fails to provide enough information for the agent to understand the tool's full purpose and usage in context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (steptype and url). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not mention parameters at all. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, even without parameter info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Performs a debugger step' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'debuggerStep' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'performs' and resource 'debugger step', but lacks details on what a debugger step entails or how it differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach or debuggerSetBreakpoints. This minimal statement provides little differentiation or clarity beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when debugging is active or what step types are available. With multiple sibling debugger tools (e.g., debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints), the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without direction on selecting this tool appropriately.
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 ('Performs a package search help') without explaining what the tool does behaviorally—such as whether it returns results, modifies data, requires authentication, or has side effects. This leaves critical operational details unspecified.
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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the tool's action, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively in a complex environment with many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('type' and 'name'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema adequately documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't detract from parameter understanding.
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 'Performs a package search help' is tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'packageSearchHelp' with minimal added meaning. While it implies a search-related function for packages, it lacks specificity about what kind of search or help is provided, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'searchPackage' or 'searchObject'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no information about appropriate usage scenarios compared to other search-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Publishes' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description fails to explain what publishing does (e.g., makes it available, changes state), what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with potential mutative impact.
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 appropriately front-loaded and avoids unnecessary elaboration, though this conciseness 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?
Given the tool's likely mutative nature (implied by 'publishes'), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the outcome, error conditions, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (name and version). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Publishes a service binding' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'publishServiceBinding' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'publishing' entails operationally or what resource is affected, though it's slightly better than just 'Process' since it includes the object type (service binding).
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, timing, or related tools like 'unPublishServiceBinding' from the sibling list, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.
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 'creates' without any details on permissions required, side effects, error conditions, or what happens after creation (e.g., whether it's persistent, reversible, or triggers other processes). 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. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks detail. Every word earns its place, making it structurally sound despite being under-informative.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like side effects, permissions, or result format. While the parameter is covered by the schema, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.
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 'config' documented as 'The trace configuration.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain the format, content, or examples of a trace configuration. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates a trace configuration' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'tracesCreateConfiguration'. It specifies the verb 'creates' and resource 'trace configuration', but provides no additional context about what a trace configuration is or what it does. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' by action, but lacks specificity about the purpose or outcome.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, related tools (e.g., 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' or 'tracesSetParameters'), or context for creation. This leaves the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic action implied by the 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing what 'occurrence markers' entail, whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, or how results are structured. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform safe or effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, though it lacks depth. This meets the criteria for conciseness, as every word serves a purpose, even if the overall content is minimal.
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 implied by the tool name (involving 'unit test' and 'occurrence markers'), the absence of annotations and output schema, and the lack of sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns or how it fits into the broader testing workflow, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both required parameters ('url' and 'source'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between these parameters or their role in retrieving markers. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves unit test occurrence markers' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it specifies the action ('retrieves') and resource ('unit test occurrence markers'), it doesn't clarify what these markers represent or how they differ from related tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'unitTestRun'. This is closer to a tautology than a meaningful explanation.
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 siblings like 'unitTestEvaluation' and 'unitTestRun' that likely handle test-related operations, there's no indication of whether this tool is for diagnostics, reporting, or another specific context. It lacks any 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' cues.
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. 'Runs unit tests' implies an execution action but lacks details on permissions, side effects, output format, or runtime behavior. It fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic verb, making it inadequate for a tool with potential mutations or complex operations.
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, 'Runs unit tests,' which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of being under-specified, but it earns a high score for brevity and lack of 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 complexity of a tool that likely executes tests (implying potential side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, it is incomplete. The description doesn't cover behavioral aspects, output expectations, or usage context, making it insufficient 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('url' and 'flags') clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what the 'url' refers to or typical 'flags' values. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 'Runs unit tests' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'unitTestRun' without specifying what kind of unit tests or on what resource. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass', leaving the purpose vague and minimally informative 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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as how it differs from 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass' among the siblings, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 waste-free. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, but as per the dimension's focus, it scores high 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 the complexity implied by 'transport configurations' (likely a system configuration tool), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what 'transport configurations' are, or any behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't clarify what 'transport configurations' are, missing an opportunity to provide context. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist.
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 'Creates transport configurations' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'createTransportsConfig' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'setTransportsConfig', nor does it clarify what 'transport configurations' entail 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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differences from sibling tools like 'setTransportsConfig' or 'transportConfigurations', 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read/write operation, its side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on what 'object types' are, how they are loaded, or the tool's role among siblings, failing to provide sufficient guidance for an AI agent despite the low complexity.
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 no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is acceptable here, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Loads object types' restates the tool name 'loadTypes' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'loads' and resource 'object types' but lacks detail on what 'object types' are or the scope of loading, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'objectTypes' or 'adtDiscovery'.
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, context, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'objectTypes' or 'adtDiscovery', leaving the agent 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.
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 'retrieves' without explaining what a reentrance ticket is, whether it's a read-only operation, if it has side effects (e.g., authentication tokens), or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 is front-loaded and directly states the action, making it highly concise and well-structured 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a reentrance ticket is, its purpose in the system, or what the retrieval entails, leaving gaps in understanding for a tool that likely involves system access or authentication among many sibling tools.
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 no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it avoids redundancy, though it could slightly improve by hinting at implicit context if any.
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 'Retrieves a reentrance ticket' restates the tool name 'reentranceTicket' with a generic verb 'retrieves', making it tautological. It lacks specificity about what a 'reentrance ticket' is or what resource it accesses, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'login' or 'createTransport' that also involve system access or operations.
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. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any usage instructions. This is inadequate for a tool that likely handles system access or authentication in a server with 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Sets', implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or response behavior. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's impact and 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 that could enhance usability, such as the tool's purpose or key constraints.
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 mutation nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for these gaps by explaining behavioral aspects, return values, or error conditions, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a complex environment.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('indent' and 'style'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the purpose of these settings or their effects. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
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 'Sets the pretty printer settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' with minimal elaboration. While it identifies the action ('Sets') and resource ('pretty printer settings'), it lacks specificity about what these settings control or their purpose, making it vague compared to more descriptive alternatives.
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 sibling tools like 'prettyPrinter' or 'prettyPrinterSetting', nor does it specify any prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for its use, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Creates an ATC run' implies a write/mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is a long-running process, what happens on success/failure, or what side effects might occur. The description doesn't address rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'creating' actually entails beyond the basic verb.
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 maximally concise with a single three-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's under-specified in terms of content, it's perfectly efficient in terms of word economy and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that creates something (implying mutation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what an ATC run is, what happens after creation, what permissions are needed, or how this differs from related ATC tools. The description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for an agent to use this tool effectively in the broader ecosystem of sibling tools.
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 has 100% description coverage, so all parameters (variant, mainUrl, maxResults) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates an ATC run' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'createAtcRun' without adding meaningful context. It specifies the verb 'creates' and resource 'ATC run', but doesn't explain what an ATC run is or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcWorklists'. This provides minimal value beyond the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. With multiple ATC-related sibling tools (atcCheckVariant, atcChangeContact, atcCustomizing, etc.), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be selected. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or relationships to 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 but offers minimal information. 'Listens for debugging events' implies an ongoing monitoring or subscription behavior, but doesn't specify whether this is a blocking call, how events are delivered, what authentication/permissions are required, whether it's resource-intensive, or what happens when conflicts occur (despite having conflict-related parameters). The description doesn't adequately describe the tool's operational 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 extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, conciseness is evaluated separately from completeness. The description has zero wasted words and is front-loaded with its core statement.
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 apparent complexity (6 parameters including conflict handling), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. 'Listens for debugging events' doesn't explain what the tool returns, how events are structured, what the listening duration is, or how to interpret results. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide much more context.
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 all 6 parameters with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
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 'Listens for debugging events' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'debuggerListen'. It doesn't specify what type of debugging events, what the listening mechanism entails, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'debuggerListeners' or 'debuggerAttach'. The purpose is vague and lacks specific verb+resource differentiation.
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. There are multiple sibling debugging tools (debuggerListeners, debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific listening tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or what alternatives might be better for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing outcomes (e.g., success/failure indicators, error formats), side effects (e.g., whether it modifies data), or operational constraints (e.g., permissions, rate limits). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to predict tool 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details like the CDS acronym meaning.
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 schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and expected results, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool, especially with sibling syntax check tools present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal semantics by implying 'cdsUrl' is used for the syntax check. However, it doesn't clarify the URL format, expected input (e.g., a specific CDS view URL), or validation rules, failing to compensate for the low schema 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 states the tool performs 'ABAP syntax check with CDS URL', which specifies the action (syntax check) and resource (CDS URL). However, it's vague about what 'CDS URL' refers to (Core Data Services URL) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckTypes', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific syntax check variant.
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 sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' and 'syntaxCheckTypes' present, the description fails to indicate whether this is for CDS-specific syntax checks, general ABAP checks with CDS input, or another context, offering no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Sets trace parameters' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing parameters, or any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. The description lacks critical behavioral context 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 sentence 'Sets trace parameters.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use.
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 mutation nature (implied by 'sets'), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what trace parameters are, how they affect the system, what the tool returns, or any error conditions. For a tool with one parameter but significant behavioral implications, the description fails to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'parameters' documented as 'The trace parameters.' The description doesn't add any meaningful semantics beyond this, such as format examples, constraints, or usage context. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates for gaps nor provides extra value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets trace parameters' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'tracesSetParameters' without providing meaningful elaboration. It specifies the verb 'sets' and resource 'trace parameters', but lacks detail about what trace parameters are or what specific operation occurs. Compared to sibling tools like 'tracesCreateConfiguration' or 'tracesDelete', it doesn't clearly differentiate its purpose beyond the basic name restatement.
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 (e.g., needing an existing trace configuration), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'tracesCreateConfiguration' or 'tracesList'. Without any contextual cues, an agent must infer usage solely from the name and schema, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or involves any side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this minimal description fails to provide adequate behavioral context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words ('Retrieves a transport reference'), with no wasted verbiage. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word serves a purpose, making it structurally efficient despite its informational shortcomings.
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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a 'transport reference' is, what the return value looks like, or how it relates to other transport tools in the sibling list. For a retrieval tool with multiple parameters, more context is needed to understand its role and output.
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 each parameter documented in the input schema (e.g., 'pgmid' as 'The program ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a transport reference' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'transportReference'. It doesn't specify what a transport reference is, what resource it retrieves from, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'transportInfo' or 'transportConfigurations'. While it includes a verb ('retrieves'), it lacks specificity about the domain or purpose beyond the name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 sibling tools like 'transportInfo', 'transportConfigurations', and 'createTransport', there's no indication of how this tool differs in context or when it should be selected over those options. The description is completely silent on usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, data format, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted content.
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 does not explain what 'ATC customizing information' includes, the return format, or any behavioral context, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's full scope and usage.
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 no parameter information is needed. The description does not add or detract from parameter semantics, aligning with the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as there is nothing to compensate for.
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 'Retrieves ATC customizing information' restates the tool name 'atcCustomizing' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('ATC customizing information'), but lacks detail on what 'customizing information' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like atcCheckVariant or atcWorklists, leaving the purpose vague.
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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like atcCheckVariant or atcWorklists that might serve similar purposes, offering no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'evaluates' but doesn't clarify what this entails—whether it's a read-only analysis, a simulation, or has side effects. It omits critical details like permissions required, output format (e.g., success/failure, error messages, or refactoring suggestions), or any rate limits. For a tool with potential code modification implications, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse and under-specified for a tool that likely involves complex refactoring logic. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, lacking the depth needed for a tool of this nature. It's front-loaded but doesn't provide enough substance 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 refactoring tools, the absence of annotations and output schema, and the description's vagueness, this tool is inadequately documented. The description doesn't explain what 'evaluation' outputs (e.g., a report, warnings, or feasibility score), leaving agents guessing about results. With sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' and 'extractMethodPreview', more context is needed to differentiate and use this tool effectively in a development workflow.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'uri' and 'range' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'range' represents in refactoring context or format examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to enhance understanding of how parameters relate to the evaluation process.
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 'Evaluates an extract method refactoring' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'extractMethodEvaluate' without adding meaningful context. It mentions 'extract method refactoring' but doesn't specify what evaluation entails (e.g., checking feasibility, analyzing impacts, or generating previews). While it hints at a software refactoring context, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' or 'extractMethodPreview'.
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 a valid code range), related tools like 'extractMethodExecute' for implementation, or scenarios where evaluation is appropriate (e.g., before committing to a refactoring). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'structure details' includes (e.g., metadata, schema, dependencies). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single phrase 'Get object structure details', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than effective communication, though it meets the criteria 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex structural data. It fails to explain what 'structure details' entail, how results are formatted, or any behavioral nuances, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for 'objectUrl' and 'version'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 'Get object structure details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'objectStructure' with minimal added context. While it indicates a retrieval action ('Get'), it lacks specificity about what 'object structure' entails or what resource it operates on, making it vague compared to sibling tools like 'getObjectSource' or 'objectTypes'.
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 like 'getObjectSource', 'objectTypes', and 'findDefinition' that might retrieve related information, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
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. 'Sets' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects (e.g., if it overwrites existing code), error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with 4 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, 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 (a write operation with 4 parameters, 3 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or usage context, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an AI agent.
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 'source code' and 'ABAP objects', hinting at 'source' and possibly 'objectSourceUrl', but doesn't explain any of the 4 parameters (e.g., what 'lockHandle' or 'transport' are for). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets source code for ABAP objects' clearly states the action (sets) and target (source code for ABAP objects), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'sets' entails (e.g., creates, updates, or replaces) and doesn't distinguish it from siblings like 'createObject' or 'getObjectSource', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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 (e.g., needing a lockHandle), related tools like 'getObjectSource' for reading source code, or scenarios where it's appropriate, 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Deletes a transport' indicates a destructive operation but provides no details about permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, system impacts, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is maximally concise at three words with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. For a simple delete operation, this brevity is appropriate if other dimensions were adequately addressed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'deleting a transport' means in this system, whether this affects workflows or data integrity, what confirmation or validation occurs, or what the response contains. The combination of destructive action with minimal documentation creates significant 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 the single parameter 'transportNumber' documented as 'The transport number.' The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain transport number format, validation rules, or where to find this identifier. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a transport' restates the tool name 'transportDelete' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb ('deletes') and resource ('a transport'), but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteObject' or 'createTransport' - it's unclear what distinguishes a 'transport' from other deletable objects 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 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. With sibling tools like 'deleteObject' and 'createTransport' available, the description doesn't indicate whether this is for specific transport types, system contexts, or workflow stages. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Unlock an object' implies a mutation operation that changes state, but it doesn't specify permissions required, side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the object isn't locked. It mentions needing a 'lockHandle' only implicitly through the parameter schema, not in the description itself.
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 maximally concise with just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. While under-specified, it's structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'unlocking' entails operationally, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral constraints. Given the tool's apparent role in a locking system (with sibling 'lock' tool), more context about the unlocking process would be helpful.
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 clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (objectUrl and lockHandle). According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Unlock an object' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'unLock' with minimal elaboration. While it indicates the action (unlock) and target (object), it lacks specificity about what type of object or system context, and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'lock' beyond the obvious opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior lock), related tools like 'lock', or scenarios where unlocking is appropriate. It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.
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 behavior. It only states 'executes a rename refactoring,' failing to describe what the execution entails (e.g., whether it modifies code, requires permissions, has side effects, or handles errors). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity, 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 lacks details on behavior, usage context, and expected outcomes, which are essential for a tool that likely performs code modifications. This leaves significant gaps in understanding.
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 parameter 'refactoring' documented as 'The rename refactoring.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'executes a rename refactoring,' which provides a clear verb ('executes') and resource ('rename refactoring'), but it's vague about what 'rename refactoring' entails. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'renameEvaluate' or 'renamePreview,' leaving ambiguity in 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 'renameEvaluate' and 'renamePreview' present, the description lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no help in 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. It states 'retrieves' implying a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned documentation. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral traits, making it inadequate for effective tool 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%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'objectUri', 'body', 'line', 'column', or 'language', failing to compensate for the lack of schema details and leaving semantics 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 'Retrieves ABAP documentation' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ABAP documentation'), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'ddicElement' that might also retrieve documentation-related information, making it somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, specific use cases, or comparisons to siblings such as 'findDefinition' or 'codeCompletion', leaving the agent without direction on 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. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it does not specify critical details such as authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the binding is invalid. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves details'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of handling service bindings, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'details' include, potential return values, or behavioral aspects like side effects or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully in context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters ('binding' as an object and 'index' as an optional number). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the structure of 'binding' or the purpose of 'index.' With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves details of a service binding,' which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'featureDetails' or 'collectionFeatureDetails' that might also retrieve details, nor does it specify what 'details' encompass (e.g., metadata, status, configuration). This makes the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. Given sibling tools like 'featureDetails' or 'collectionFeatureDetails,' it lacks explicit instructions on use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This absence of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose critical traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned information. For a tool with no annotations 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the type of information retrieved.
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 tool with 4 parameters (including optional ones) and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'DDIC element' entails in this context, the nature of the retrieved information, or behavioral aspects like response format or errors. For a retrieval tool in a technical environment like ABAP, 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all parameters (e.g., 'path' as the required path, optional booleans for associations, views, and objects). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for parameter usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves information about a DDIC element,' which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('DDIC element'). However, it lacks specificity about what type of information is retrieved (e.g., metadata, structure, properties) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure,' which might have overlapping purposes in an ABAP context. This makes it vague in distinguishing its unique role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for ABAP development or system analysis), or exclusions. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure'), the lack of explicit or implied usage scenarios leaves the agent without direction on 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. It states 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires an active debugger session, permissions needed, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., structured data, plain text). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
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 easy to parse. However, it's front-loaded but could benefit from additional context to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex debugging data. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., stack frames, line numbers), prerequisites (e.g., must be in debug mode), or error conditions. For a debugger-related tool, this leaves 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with one optional parameter 'semanticURIs' fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining when to use semantic URIs or their impact on the stack trace. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves the debugger stack trace' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (debugger stack trace), but it's vague about what a 'debugger stack trace' entails (e.g., current session, specific breakpoint). It doesn't distinguish from sibling debugger tools like debuggerVariables or debuggerStep, which handle different aspects of debugging.
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 specify if this is for active debugging sessions, post-mortem analysis, or how it relates to other debugger tools like debuggerListen or debuggerGoToStack. The description lacks context for selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves a list' implies a read-only operation, but it does not specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the dumps are in (e.g., raw data, summaries). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral details for effective tool 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 a single, straightforward sentence: 'Retrieves a list of dumps.' It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise. However, it is arguably too brief, lacking necessary context about what 'dumps' are, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a list retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'dumps' are, the return format, or any behavioral traits like pagination or authentication needs. While the schema covers the single parameter well, the overall context for using the tool is insufficient, especially without annotations to fill in 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single optional parameter 'query' documented as 'An optional query string to filter the dumps.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it mentions no parameters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter semantics without additional description input.
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 'Retrieves a list of dumps' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('dumps'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'dumps' are (e.g., data exports, log files, or system dumps) and does not distinguish this tool from any siblings, as none of the sibling tools have similar names or obvious overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or exclusions. While the sibling tools list includes no obvious alternatives for listing dumps, the description itself offers no usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, this leaves critical behavioral traits (e.g., what the retrieved source code looks like or how errors are handled) unspecified, creating ambiguity.
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: 'Retrieves source code for ABAP objects'. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This efficiency makes it easy to parse, 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 complexity (2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address parameter meanings, output expectations, or behavioral nuances like error cases. For a retrieval tool in a development environment with many siblings, more context is needed to ensure reliable use, making this description inadequate for the tool's needs.
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 'objectSourceUrl' and 'options' are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no semantic information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what an 'objectSourceUrl' is, what format it expects, or what 'options' might include. With two parameters and no schema descriptions, the description fails to compensate, leaving users guessing about input requirements.
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 'Retrieves source code for ABAP objects' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (source code for ABAP objects), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'setObjectSource' (which modifies source code) or 'findDefinition' (which might retrieve metadata), leaving the distinction vague. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or uniqueness.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an object source URL), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'objectStructure' or 'codeCompletion'. Without such context, users must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective 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. It states 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the output is in. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for its purpose, 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 'main programs' are, the return format, or any error handling. For a tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves too much undefined for effective use by an AI agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'includeUrl' documented as 'The URL of the include.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or format details. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves the main programs for a given include,' which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('main programs'), but it's vague about what 'main programs' and 'include' mean in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'classIncludes' or 'getObjectSource,' which might have overlapping functionality, leaving ambiguity in its specific role.
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 many sibling tools like 'classIncludes' or 'findDefinition' that might retrieve related information, the description lacks any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it unclear in what scenarios this tool is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it is likely non-destructive, but fails to specify critical behaviors like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
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 is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter details, or return values, which are essential for a tool with one parameter and no structured output documentation. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 required parameter 'objectUrl' undocumented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an 'objectUrl' is (e.g., a URI format, source location) or providing examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema 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 states the verb ('Get') and resource ('registration information for an ABAP object'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'registration information' entails (e.g., metadata, status, ownership) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'objectTypes', leaving the scope 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an object URL), exclusions, or related tools for similar queries, such as 'findObjectPath' or 'objectTypes', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a syntax check, implying a read-only analysis, but doesn't clarify if it modifies data, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., errors, warnings). For a tool with 5 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Perform ABAP syntax check') and specifies the resource ('with source code'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal 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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter roles, or expected results, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary detail for a multi-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'source code', which loosely relates to the 'code' parameter, but it doesn't explain the purpose of 'url', 'mainUrl', 'mainProgram', or 'version'. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving most parameters unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs an ABAP syntax check with source code, which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes', leaving the scope ambiguous. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what distinguishes this syntax check from others.
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, context, or exclusions, and it fails to reference sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' for CDS-specific checks or 'syntaxCheckTypes' for type checks. This leaves the agent without direction on 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. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what is retrieved (e.g., a list, details, or metadata), any authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. This leaves the agent with minimal insight into how the tool behaves beyond a basic read 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's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'syntax check types' are, what format the retrieval returns, or how it differs from related syntax tools, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding and correct usage.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it doesn't introduce any confusion, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
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 'Retrieves syntax check types' restates the tool name 'syntaxCheckTypes' in a slightly different wording, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what 'syntax check types' are (e.g., categories, configurations, or available checks) or provide any distinguishing details from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', leaving the purpose vague beyond the literal 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' and 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' that perform syntax checks, the description lacks context on whether this tool is for listing available check types, configuring them, or another purpose, offering no help in selecting the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.
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 front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for full clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool that retrieves data for traces (implied from sibling tools), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what a 'hit list' is, the return format, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information for proper 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('id' and 'withSystemEvents'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the significance of 'hit list' in relation to parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('hit list for a trace'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'hit list' entails (e.g., list of database hits, events, or errors) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesStatements', making it vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tracesList' or 'tracesStatements'. The description implies usage for a specific trace but offers no context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with 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. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no trace requests exist. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by including usage context or behavioral details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with similar names, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, differentiate from other trace tools, or provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively in this complex environment.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'user' described as 'The user.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a list of trace requests' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (trace requests), but it's vague about scope or differentiation from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList'. It doesn't specify what constitutes a 'trace request' or how this differs from other trace-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'tracesList' and 'tracesHitList', the description lacks any context about differences (e.g., filtering, format, or purpose), leaving the agent to guess based on 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 full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'transport information' includes (e.g., format, scope). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity.
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 front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity, as it under-specifies the tool's purpose.
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, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't clarify what 'transport information' returns or how to interpret it, leaving gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and output in context of sibling tools.
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 fully documents the parameters (objSourceUrl, devClass, operation). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get transport information for an object source' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('transport information'), but it's vague about what 'transport information' entails (e.g., status, details, configuration) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig'. 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 such as 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it includes historical or pending transports. 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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be more front-loaded with critical details (e.g., specifying 'SAP transport requests') to enhance clarity without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with potential complexity (e.g., retrieving user-specific data). It does not address return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances, 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the context of 'user' (e.g., username, ID) or the implications of 'targets'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('transports for a user'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'transports' are (e.g., SAP transport requests, data transfers) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportInfo' or 'transportsByConfig', leaving ambiguity in 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 many sibling tools related to transports (e.g., 'transportInfo', 'transportsByConfig'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it unclear how this tool fits into the workflow.
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 validates parameters but doesn't describe what validation entails (e.g., syntax checks, consistency rules), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, which is appropriate for such a brief statement.
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 (1 parameter but 0% schema coverage), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't compensate for missing details on behavior, parameters, or return values, making it inadequate for an agent to use the 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?
The input schema has 1 parameter ('options') with 0% description coverage, and the tool description doesn't add any parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'options' should contain (e.g., a JSON string with object properties), its format, or examples, leaving the parameter's meaning and usage completely undocumented.
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 'Validate parameters for a new ABAP object' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('parameters for a new ABAP object'), which is adequate. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckTypes' that might also involve validation, leaving some ambiguity about its specific 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., before creating an object), exclusions, or related tools like 'createObject' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but gives minimal behavioral information. It mentions 'activate' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds almost no behavioral context 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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the core purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action and resource.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'activate' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this differs from similar tools. Given the complexity implied by 4 parameters and the lack of structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context about this tool's specific role.
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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'name and URL' which maps to the two required parameters, but provides no extra context about format, examples, or relationships between parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Activate') and resource ('ABAP object'), but is vague about what 'activate' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'activateObjects' or 'createObject', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific activation method.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activateObjects' or 'createObject'. The description provides no context about prerequisites, when this activation method is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other activation or creation tools in the server.
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' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a valid 'ATC exemption proposal'. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It 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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'markerId' documented as 'The ID of the marker.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or context about what a marker represents. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter 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 'Retrieves an ATC exemption proposal' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC exemption proposal), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'atcRequestExemption' or 'atcCustomizing', leaving ambiguity about its specific role within the ATC-related toolset.
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 such as 'atcRequestExemption' and 'atcCustomizing' present, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
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 data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned worklists. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Retrieves ATC worklists.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core 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 the complexity of a tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what ATC worklists are, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete information to effectively use the tool in context.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting all four parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or contextual usage of parameters like 'runResultId'. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 'Retrieves ATC worklists' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC worklists), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what ATC worklists are or how they differ from related tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing', making it somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 other ATC-related tools in the sibling list. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List class components', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, pagination behavior, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond basic listing.
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 'List class components', a single phrase that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's intent in minimal space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 data about class components. It doesn't explain what 'components' entail, the return format, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'The URL of the class'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter 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 'List class components' clearly states the action (list) and resource (class components), but it's vague about what 'class components' specifically refers to (e.g., methods, attributes, interfaces). It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure', which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 related to classes and objects (e.g., 'classIncludes', 'findDefinition', 'objectStructure'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned details. 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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 does not explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or behavioral traits like side effects. For a retrieval tool in a complex server with many siblings, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter documented as 'The URL of the collection feature.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves details for a given collection feature', which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource type. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'featureDetails' (which might retrieve details for non-collection features) or 'findCollectionByUrl' (which might find collections rather than retrieve their feature details), leaving the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., authentication), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
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 'Creates', implying a write operation, but does not cover permissions, side effects, error handling, 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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying 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?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like what a 'test include' is, how it interacts with the system, or what the creation entails. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed.
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 all parameters (clas, lockHandle, transport) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Creates') and resource ('test include for a class'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'createObject' or 'createTransport', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus other creation tools. The purpose is clear but lacks 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it requires a specific class state or if other tools like 'createObject' are better for different scenarios. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'child variables' entail (e.g., nested objects, arrays). This is inadequate for a tool with potential complexity in debugging contexts.
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 is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by stating the verb and target directly.
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 does not address what the tool returns (e.g., structure of child variables), error handling, or dependencies on other debugger tools. For a debugging-related tool with potential nested data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full context and behavior.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'parent' parameter documented as 'The parent variable name.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it does not explain parameter usage, format, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter 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 states the action ('Retrieves') and target ('child variables of a debugger variable'), which is clear but basic. It does not differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerVariables' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue', leaving ambiguity about when to use each. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity for 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'debuggerVariables' (likely for general variable listing) and 'debuggerSetVariableValue' (for modification), the description offers no context on prerequisites, typical workflows, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Stops a debug listener' implies a destructive action (deletion/termination), but it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects other debugging sessions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its effects and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Stops a debug listener.') that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, nor does it explain the parameter context (why four IDs are needed). Given the complexity of stopping a debug listener (which likely involves system state changes), more detail is warranted to help an agent use it correctly and safely.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter documented (e.g., 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId'). The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters—it doesn't explain why all four are required, how they identify the specific listener, or provide examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting without description enhancement.
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 'Stops a debug listener' clearly states the action (stops) and target (debug listener), which is specific enough to understand the basic function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'debuggerListeners' (which likely lists listeners) or 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' (which deletes breakpoints rather than listeners), leaving room for confusion about when to use this specific deletion tool versus other debugger-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that a listener must exist first), when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'debuggerListeners' or 'debuggerListen'. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose this tool appropriately in a workflow.
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. It states 'Retrieves a list,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.
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 zero waste: 'Retrieves a list of debugger listeners.' It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary verbiage.
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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling debugger tools), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations. For a retrieval tool in a debugger context, more information on what 'debugger listeners' are or how results are structured would improve completeness.
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 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., debuggingMode, terminalId, ideId, user, checkConflict). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves a list of debugger listeners' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (debugger listeners), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach, debuggerDeleteListener, or debuggerListen, leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific tool versus others.
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 debugger-related sibling tools (e.g., debuggerAttach, debuggerDeleteListener, debuggerListen), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This lack of guidance could lead to incorrect tool selection by 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing aspects like whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, returns structured data, or has limitations (e.g., rate limits). For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent adequately.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, which is ideal for clarity in a limited space.
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 debugger operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits, leaving the AI agent with significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool effectively.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'parents' parameter documented as 'An array of parent variable names.' The description does not add any extra meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter 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 'Retrieves debugger variables' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('debugger variables'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'debugger variables' entails (e.g., scope, type) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'debuggerChildVariables', which could cause confusion for an AI agent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'debuggerChildVariables' or how it relates to other debugger tools. This leaves the AI agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('executes'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., code changes), error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('executes'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though it lacks depth.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'execute' entails (e.g., permanent code changes), success/failure outcomes, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with critical unknowns.
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 'refactoring' documented as 'The refactoring object.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as what constitutes a valid refactoring object or its structure. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'executes an extract method refactoring', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview', leaving the specific role ambiguous within the refactoring workflow.
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 an evaluated refactoring first), exclusions, or how it fits with siblings like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview'.
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, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 appropriately sized for the tool's simple purpose, 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 'details' are retrieved, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error cases. For a retrieval tool with minimal structured data, this leaves significant 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('title') clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool's purpose ('Retrieves details for a given feature'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('feature'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'collectionFeatureDetails' or 'findDefinition', leaving ambiguity about scope or 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, such as how it differs from 'collectionFeatureDetails' or 'findDefinition' for feature-related queries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('finds') but does not describe what 'finds' entails—e.g., whether it returns a single result or multiple, error handling for invalid URLs, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
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 insufficient for a tool that performs a lookup operation. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., collection details, error responses) or behavioral aspects like idempotency or side effects, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as URL format examples or validation rules. Thus, it meets the baseline for adequate but unenhanced parameter 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 'Finds a collection by its URL' clearly states the verb ('finds') and resource ('collection'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'findObjectPath', which also perform search/find operations, leaving ambiguity about when this specific tool is appropriate versus others.
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 such as 'searchObject' and 'findDefinition' available, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is invalid. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.
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, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is minimal. It lacks context on return values, error cases, or how it fits with sibling tools, making it incomplete for effective agent use despite the simple input.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as URL format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline 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 states the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'transport configuration', which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'transport configuration' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' (plural) or 'hasTransportConfig', making it somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'transportConfigurations' or 'hasTransportConfig'. The description only states what it does, without context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'evaluates', which suggests a read-only or analysis operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, has side effects, or provides detailed output. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 required 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a rename evaluation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the evaluation entails, expected outputs, or error conditions, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.
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 clear descriptions for each parameter (uri, line, startColumn, endColumn). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters define the object to rename or their interrelationships, so it meets 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 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' states the action (evaluates) and target (rename refactoring), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'evaluates' entails (e.g., checking feasibility, impact analysis) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview', making it vague but not tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview'. The description implies it's for evaluation but offers no context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a preview operation, which suggests it's non-destructive and read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe what the preview output includes, any side effects, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral 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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves complex refactoring operations. It doesn't explain what the preview shows, how it differs from execution, or what the return value might be. For a tool with nested objects and potential behavioral nuances, this minimal description leaves significant 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('renameRefactoring' and 'transport'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'rename refactoring proposal' entails or when 'transport' is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 'Previews a rename refactoring' clearly states the action (previews) and the resource (rename refactoring), but it's somewhat vague about what 'preview' entails compared to actual execution. It distinguishes from siblings like 'renameExecute' by implying this is a preview rather than execution, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'renameExecute' or 'renameEvaluate'. The description implies it's for previewing rename operations, but doesn't specify scenarios where a preview is needed versus direct execution or evaluation.
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 'retrieves' implying a read operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes a 'revision' (e.g., version history, change logs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.
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 is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it lacks depth due to its 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 complexity of retrieving revisions (which may involve historical data or versioning) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'revisions' entail, the format of the return data, or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent with incomplete context for 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'objectUrl' and 'clsInclude' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'objectUrl' is required to fetch revisions, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves revisions for an object' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('revisions for an object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'getObjectSource' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve object-related data, leaving ambiguity about its specific role.
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., 'getObjectSource', 'objectStructure'), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions running a SQL query but fails to disclose critical traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that executes arbitrary SQL.
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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, 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 complexity of executing SQL queries, the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimalism, it is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects, return values, or error scenarios, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'sqlQuery', 'rowNumber', and 'decode'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for parameter use. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Runs a SQL query on the target system,' which clearly indicates the action (run) and resource (SQL query). However, it lacks specificity about the target system (e.g., database type) and does not differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'tableContents' or 'ddicRepositoryAccess,' making it 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. With many sibling tools available (e.g., 'tableContents' for reading tables, 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation), there is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'all objects' entails (e.g., format, completeness). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 quickly, which is ideal for conciseness in tool descriptions.
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 for a tool that likely returns complex data (objects in a package). It lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for reliable agent use despite the simple parameter schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'packageName' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the tool operates on a package, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without extra value from 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 states the action ('Get all objects') and resource ('in a package'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'objects' means (e.g., files, classes, modules) and doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'packageSearchHelp', leaving ambiguity in 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'searchObject', 'packageSearchHelp'), the description lacks any context, 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('stages changes') but does not explain what this entails (e.g., modifies the Git index, requires write permissions, may affect local repository state), nor does it cover error handling, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary details, earning a top score for brevity and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving Git operations with a nested object parameter), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'repo' parameter's structure, the effect of staging, potential errors, or what the tool returns, leaving critical context missing for effective use by an AI agent.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'repo', 'user', and 'password' documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the 'repo' object structure or when 'user' and 'password' are needed. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.
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 'Stages changes in a Git repository' clearly states the action (stages) and resource (Git repository), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'stages' entails (e.g., adding files to the staging area) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pushRepo' or 'gitPullRepo', which are related but distinct Git operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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., after making changes to files), exclusions (e.g., not for committing or pushing), or refer to sibling tools like 'pushRepo' for subsequent steps, leaving usage context implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes a trace' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects on related data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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, making it efficient 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?
For a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permanence, authorization needs, error conditions, or what constitutes a 'trace' in this context. Given the complexity of deletion operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a trace' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (trace), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' or 'deleteObject', making it vague about what specifically distinguishes this deletion operation from others in the system.
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 sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' and 'deleteObject' present, the description offers no context about whether this is for deleting trace data versus configuration, or what prerequisites might exist for using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('Retrieves') without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions needed, pagination, rate limits, or what the returned list includes. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 lacks details on behavior, return values, and differentiation from siblings, which is insufficient for a tool in a complex server with many related tools.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'user' documented as 'The user.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a list of traces'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'traces' are in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'tracesListRequests' or 'tracesHitList', making it 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'tracesListRequests' and 'tracesHitList' present, the description offers no context on differentiation, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Retrieves' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe (non-destructive), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format is (e.g., list of statements, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.
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 appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'statements' are, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a retrieval tool in a trace-related context, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it correctly without guessing.
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 ('id' as trace ID and 'options' as retrieval options). The description adds no meaning beyond this, such as explaining what 'options' might include (e.g., filters, formats) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves statements for a trace' clearly states the action (retrieve) and resource (statements for a trace), but it's vague about what 'statements' are (e.g., SQL statements, log entries, or other data). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', which might list traces rather than their statements.
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 'tracesList' (likely listing traces) and 'tracesHitList' (possibly listing trace hits), the description lacks context for selection. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a trace ID from another tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Adds a user to a transport' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is reversible, what happens if the user already exists, error conditions, or side effects. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the core purpose directly. Every word earns its place, 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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects, return values, error handling, or how it fits with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies system state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.
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 ('transportNumber' and 'user') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples for these parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Adds a user to a transport' clearly states the action (adds) and resource (user to transport), but it's vague about what 'transport' means in this context and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'transportSetOwner'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the 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 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 sibling tools like 'createTransport', 'transportSetOwner', and 'userTransports', there's no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or context for adding users to transports. The description offers no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'retrieves' entails (e.g., list format, pagination). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and front-loaded, 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, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'transports' are, how results are structured, or behavioral context, making it insufficient 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what a 'configuration URI' is or clarify the 'targets' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves transports by configuration' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (transports), but lacks specificity about what 'transports' means in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like 'transportInfo', 'userTransports', or 'createTransport'. It's not tautological but remains vague 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to transports (e.g., 'transportInfo', 'userTransports', 'createTransport'), the description fails to specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is 'unpublishes,' implying a mutation (likely destructive), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the action is reversible, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.
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 likely performs a mutation (unpublishing) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a complex environment.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with parameters 'name' and 'version' clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('unpublishes') and resource ('a service binding'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'unpublishing' entails (e.g., making it unavailable, removing from a catalog) and does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'publishServiceBinding' beyond the opposite action. This makes it vague but not tautological.
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 or any prerequisites. The presence of 'publishServiceBinding' as a sibling implies a related operation, but the description does not mention it or explain the context for unpublishing, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'previews' an extract method refactoring, implying a read-only or simulation operation, but does not detail behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information succinctly.
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 complexity (a single parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not provide behavioral context or usage guidelines. For a refactoring preview tool, more detail on outcomes or constraints would enhance completeness, but it meets the basic threshold.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'proposal' documented as 'The extract method proposal.' The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on the parameter's format, content, or usage. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'previews an extract method refactoring,' which indicates a specific action (preview) on a specific resource (extract method refactoring). However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' and 'extractMethodExecute,' making it vague about its unique role. The purpose is clear but not distinct enough for optimal agent selection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodExecute') or specify contexts for previewing versus evaluating or executing. This absence leaves the agent without explicit 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the list is in (e.g., JSON, plain text). This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it is front-loaded but could be slightly more informative (e.g., adding context like 'in the ABAP system') without losing conciseness, keeping it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'inactive objects' means, how the list is structured, or any prerequisites (e.g., login required), leaving gaps for the agent to infer usage in a system with many sibling tools.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have clarified if there are implicit filters (e.g., by type or date), though not required. Baseline is high due to no parameters.
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 list of inactive objects' clearly states the action (get) and resource (inactive objects), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'inactive objects' refers to in this context (e.g., ABAP objects, system resources) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'activateObjects' or 'deleteObject', leaving 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention if this is for auditing, cleanup, or monitoring purposes, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'activateObjects' for reactivation or 'deleteObject' for removal, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions activation but doesn't explain what activation entails (e.g., is it destructive, does it require specific permissions, are there side effects like locking objects, what happens on failure). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 purpose and uses technical terminology appropriately for the domain.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response format, and it fails to differentiate from sibling tools. Given the complexity of object activation in ABAP systems, more context is needed.
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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for the JSON array or when to use preaudit. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('activate') and target ('ABAP objects'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'activateByName', which appears to serve a similar purpose but with different parameters.
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 'activateByName', nor does it mention any prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for activation. It's a bare statement of function 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. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what the graph contains. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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's complexity (implied by 'graph' retrieval) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the compatibility graph entails, its format, or usage context, leaving the agent with insufficient information.
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 no parameter information is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves the ADT compatibility graph', which provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('ADT compatibility graph'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many siblings (e.g., 'adtDiscovery', 'adtCoreDiscovery'), leaving the specific purpose vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 0 parameters, it might be implied for general retrieval, but no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, making usage unclear among similar 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. 'Changes' implies a mutation operation, but the description does not specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, or what the tool returns, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively in context.
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 clear descriptions for 'itemUri' and 'userId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema adequately documents the parameters, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Changes') and the resource ('contact for an ATC finding'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'atcContactUri' or 'atcCustomizing', which might handle related ATC contact operations, so it lacks 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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and parameters alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned data. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 core purpose ('retrieves information'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that retrieves information. It doesn't specify what kind of information is returned (e.g., details, status, configuration) or any behavioral traits like pagination or error responses. For a retrieval tool in a complex environment with many siblings, this leaves too much undefined.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'variant' documented as 'The name of the ATC check variant.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on variant names. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('information about an ATC check variant'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other ATC-related sibling tools like 'atcChangeContact', 'atcContactUri', or 'atcWorklists', which might have overlapping or similar retrieval functions.
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 ATC-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'atcCustomizing', 'atcWorklists'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the expected output looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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 - a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information (the action and resource) and contains no unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient 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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a successful creation, what gets returned, error conditions, or how this tool relates to the broader transport management context evident from sibling tool names. The minimal description leaves too many operational questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value in explaining parameter relationships or usage nuances.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new transport request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' or 'createObject', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes a 'transport request' from other creation 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other creation tools like 'createObject' and 'createTransportsConfig'), there's no indication of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or what makes this tool the right choice for creating transport requests specifically.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not explain what 'navigates to' entails—e.g., whether it changes the debugger's current focus, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a debugger navigation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral effects, error conditions, and how it interacts with other debugger tools. This makes it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in complex debugging scenarios.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'urlOrPosition' documented as 'The URL or position of the stack entry.' The description does not add further meaning beyond this, such as examples or format details. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('navigates to') and target ('a specific stack entry in the debugger'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerStackTrace' or 'debuggerStep', which reduces clarity in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an active debugger session, and does not mention related tools like 'debuggerStackTrace' for listing stack entries or 'debuggerStep' for navigation by steps.
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 a mutation action ('Sets'), implying it modifies state, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like required debugger state, permissions, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 directly states the tool's action, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, and context (e.g., debugger session requirements), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as variable naming rules or value formatting. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Sets') and resource ('debugger variable'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints or debuggerVariables, which would require more specificity about what type of variable or context this applies to.
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 debugger-related siblings (e.g., debuggerVariables, debuggerSetBreakpoints), it fails to specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Deletes' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or any side effects (e.g., impact on related objects). This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 scan and understand quickly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should cover behavioral aspects like safety warnings, prerequisites (e.g., needing a lock), or expected outcomes. The current description leaves too many gaps for effective 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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (objectUrl, lockHandle, transport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('an ABAP object from the system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportDelete' or 'deleteTransportsConfig', which might handle different deletion contexts, 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, such as 'transportDelete' for transport-related deletions or 'unLock' for unlocking objects. It lacks any context on prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('retrieves'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what 'feeds' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.
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 ('Retrieves a list of feeds.') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low complexity (0 parameters), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'feeds' are, their format, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic purpose.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters without redundancy.
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 'Retrieves a list of feeds' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (feeds), but it's vague about what 'feeds' refers to in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, which include various data retrieval operations like 'gitRepos', 'objectTypes', or 'systemUsers', leaving the specific domain unclear.
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 many sibling tools for retrieving different types of data (e.g., 'gitRepos', 'objectTypes'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or comparisons, offering no help in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. 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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying a repository is created, which is already clear from the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Creates') and resource ('a new Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'gitRepos', but it's not vague or tautological.
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 'gitRepos' (which might list repositories) or 'createObject' (which might create other types of objects). There's no mention of prerequisites, 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. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but fails to describe what specific information is returned, authentication requirements (though hinted by user/password parameters), rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse and understand 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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is retrieved (e.g., metadata, commits, branches), how results are formatted, or any dependencies. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all parameters (repourl, user, password). The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 ('Retrieves information') and resource ('about an external Git repository'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'gitRepos' or 'remoteRepoInfo', which might also retrieve Git repository information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context such as prerequisites, when it's appropriate compared to other Git-related tools (e.g., 'gitRepos' for local repos), or any exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Pulls changes') but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure, if it requires authentication, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-like 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 Git operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Pulls changes' entails (e.g., merging, fetching), error handling, or return values, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.
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%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters (repoId, branch, transport, user, password) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, which aligns with the baseline score when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Pulls changes') and resource ('from a Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pushRepo' or 'gitRepos', which would require mentioning specific scope or constraints.
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 'pushRepo' or 'gitCreateRepo'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., repository setup) or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is destructive (likely, given 'unlinks'), requires permissions, has side effects, or what happens post-unlink (e.g., error handling, confirmation). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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 and directly states the tool's purpose, 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 for a likely destructive operation. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, or error handling, which are crucial for safe tool invocation. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these gaps in context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'repoId' parameter. The description doesn't add parameter-specific details, but with only one parameter and high schema coverage, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as no compensation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Unlinks') and resource ('a Git repository'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what 'unlinks' means operationally (e.g., disconnects, removes association) or differentiate from siblings like 'gitRepos' (list) or 'gitCreateRepo' (create), leaving ambiguity about its exact function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'gitRepos' for listing or 'gitCreateRepo' for creation, leaving the agent to infer 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 must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool 'checks' something, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what constitutes a 'proposal message', the criteria for the check, or the output format (e.g., boolean, detailed validation). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about its behavior and results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence: 'Checks if a given object is a proposal message.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and is appropriately sized for a simple validation tool. Every part of the sentence 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 tool's complexity (a validation check with no output schema and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'proposal message' is, the validation logic, or the return value (e.g., true/false, error details). For a tool that likely returns a boolean or status, the lack of output information makes it inadequate for full contextual understanding.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'proposal' documented as 'The ATC exemption proposal.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on the object's structure or validation rules. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics.
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 tool's purpose: 'Checks if a given object is a proposal message.' It specifies the verb ('checks') and the resource ('proposal message'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its many siblings, such as 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption', which might involve similar proposal-related operations, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks any mention of prerequisites, context (e.g., when a proposal message needs validation), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption'. This absence 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action (authenticate) but doesn't describe what happens: whether it creates a session, returns a token, sets cookies, has rate limits, requires specific permissions, or what errors might occur. For a critical authentication tool with security implications, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. This is optimal conciseness for a tool with a clear primary 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 an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what successful authentication yields (session, token, etc.), failure modes, security implications, or dependencies with other tools. Given the critical role of authentication in this system and the rich sibling toolset, more context is needed.
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 all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., doesn't explain relationships between parameters or authentication flow). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance 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 'Authenticate with ABAP system' clearly states the verb (authenticate) and target (ABAP system), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'logout' by focusing on establishing authentication rather than terminating it. However, it doesn't specify what authentication enables (e.g., session creation, token generation) 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must be called before other operations), when authentication might expire, or whether it should be used for re-authentication. With many sibling tools that likely require authentication, this lack of context is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieval but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or return format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'contents' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral nuances, leaving too much undefined for 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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying node retrieval, which aligns with the schema but does not enhance understanding. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('contents of a node in the ABAP repository tree'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'tableContents' or 'objectStructure', which might also retrieve content-related information, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'tableContents' or 'objectStructure' that might retrieve similar data, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list, structured data). 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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'object types' entails, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a retrieval tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to help the agent use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's acceptable since there are none to explain. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves object types' clearly states the action (retrieve) and target (object types), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what 'object types' means in this context (e.g., ABAP objects, database objects) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'loadTypes' or 'ddicElement', making it 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. With sibling tools like 'loadTypes' and 'ddicElement' that might relate to types or elements, there's no indication of differences, prerequisites, or context for usage, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 formats code but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only or modifies data (implied mutation but not confirmed), what happens on invalid input (e.g., errors or no-op), performance considerations (e.g., speed or size limits), or output format (e.g., formatted string or status). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely performs code transformation.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant 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?
Given the tool's complexity (code formatting likely involves transformation rules) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., formatted code or success status), error handling, or dependencies (e.g., requires ABAP syntax). For a mutation-like tool with no structured behavioral data, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'source' parameter clearly documented as 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as examples, constraints (e.g., maximum length), or formatting rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as formatting ABAP code using the pretty printer, specifying both the action (formats) and resource (ABAP code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' (which configures settings) and 'syntaxCheckCode' (which checks syntax). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'fixEdits' or 'extractMethodExecute', which might also involve code transformation.
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., valid ABAP syntax), exclusions (e.g., not for non-ABAP code), or comparisons to similar tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation or 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' for configuration. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, or what the retrieved settings include. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple read operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the retrieved settings entail, their format, or any constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.
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 no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing unnecessary complexity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'retrieves' settings, which is a clear verb, and specifies 'pretty printer settings' as the resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' (which modifies settings) or 'prettyPrinter' (which likely applies formatting), making the purpose somewhat vague in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'setPrettyPrinterSetting' or 'prettyPrinter'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear relative to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'pushes changes' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (though user/password parameters hint at this), whether it's destructive (overwrites remote history), rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. 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 Git push operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'changes' entails (commits? staged files?), success/failure behaviors, or integration with sibling tools like 'stageRepo'. Given the complexity of Git operations and lack of structured metadata, more context is needed.
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 all four parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful context about parameter usage, relationships (e.g., that 'repo' and 'staging' are required while 'user' and 'password' are optional for authentication), or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('pushes changes') and target resource ('to a Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling Git tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo' beyond the basic verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing staged changes first), nor does it reference related tools such as 'stageRepo' or 'gitPullRepo' from the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs (e.g., when user/password are required), rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned information. This is inadequate for a tool with potential authentication 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is retrieved (e.g., branches, commits, metadata), how authentication works with the optional parameters, or any behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (repo, user, password) with their types and optionality. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the repo format or when user/password are needed, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('information about a remote Git repository'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'gitRepos', which appear related, so it lacks explicit 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 such as 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'gitRepos', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for selection among similar 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 full burden. It mentions switching branches but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies working directory state, requires authentication (implied by user/password params but not stated), handles errors, or has side effects. 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 a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, return values, or side effects (e.g., working directory changes). Given the complexity and lack of structured support, more context is needed for safe 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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying branch switching, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like format examples or interdependencies between parameters.
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 ('switches') and resource ('branch of a Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'pushRepo' that also interact with Git repositories, missing explicit 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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., repository must be accessible), when not to use it, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' for updating content.
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. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, performance characteristics, or what happens with large tables (e.g., pagination). The description lacks crucial behavioral context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential function 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 data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what format the retrieved contents will be in, how errors are handled, or any limitations (like maximum row retrieval without the optional parameter). The context signals indicate complexity (4 parameters, 1 required) that warrants more complete guidance.
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 fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced 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 action ('retrieves') and resource ('contents of an ABAP table'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also retrieve data from ABAP tables, such as 'runQuery' or 'nodeContents', which appears to be a similar content retrieval tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'runQuery' (which might execute custom queries) and 'nodeContents' (which retrieves node contents), there's no indication of when this table-specific retrieval is preferred over those options or what distinguishes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes something, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or what happens upon success/failure. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and front-loaded. It immediately conveys 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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permanence, error handling, or required permissions, nor does it explain what happens after deletion (e.g., confirmation message, side effects). Given the complexity of a destructive operation, more context is needed.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter clearly documented as 'The ID of the trace configuration.' The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Deletes') and the resource ('a trace configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesDelete' or 'deleteObject', but it's specific enough to know what it operates on.
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 'tracesDelete' or 'deleteObject', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing configuration ID or permissions. It's a bare statement of function with no contextual usage information.
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. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns all configurations or a subset, involves pagination, or what the output format is. 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 no wasted words. 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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'transport configurations' entail, how they're returned, or any prerequisites. For a tool in a complex domain (SAP/ABAP transport management) with many siblings, more context is needed to use it effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the absence of parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves transport configurations' clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('transport configurations'), providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig', leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of transport configurations it handles.
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 'getTransportConfiguration' (singular) and 'transportsByConfig' (plural by config), the description offers no context for choosing between them, leaving the agent to guess based on naming 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. While 'Sets' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if the transport already has an owner, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what errors might occur, or any behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of ownership changes and the lack of structured data, the description should provide more context about the operation's effects and requirements.
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 input schema already documents both parameters ('transportNumber' and 'targetuser') adequately. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Sets') and resource ('owner of a transport'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportAddUser' or 'transportRelease'.
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 'transportAddUser' and 'transportRelease' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's appropriate to use it over other transport-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what format the definitions are in, if it's read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return values or behavior, which could be important for retrieval operations in this context.
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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable here. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't mislead or omit required details.
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 'Retrieves annotation definitions' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('annotation definitions'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'adtDiscovery' or 'findDefinition', which might also retrieve metadata, leaving the scope 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. With many sibling tools that might retrieve definitions or metadata, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool checks for existence, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'exists' means (e.g., active vs. configured). For a tool with no 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the tool's function 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavior, or output format. For a simple existence check, this might suffice, but it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it effectively.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, but that's appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is given since the schema fully covers the lack of parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
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 'Check if transport configuration exists' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('transport configuration'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportConfigurations', which might retrieve or list configurations rather than check existence.
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 'getTransportConfiguration' and 'transportConfigurations' that likely retrieve configuration details, there's no indication of when this existence check is preferred over those tools or what context warrants its 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves'), making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., response format or error cases) due to missing annotations. This makes it functional but incomplete for optimal 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'findingUri' clearly documented. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or format details. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('contact URI for an ATC finding'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'atcChangeContact' or 'atcUsers', which might also involve contact-related operations, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ATC finding URI) or comparisons to sibling tools like 'atcChangeContact', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but fails to mention critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
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, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It directly communicates the core function without fluff or ambiguity, which is ideal for quick comprehension by an AI agent.
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 effective tool use. It doesn't specify what the retrieved list contains (e.g., user attributes, format), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with no structured data support, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, as there are none, so it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline score of 4 is applied since no parameter information is required, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('list of ATC users'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like 'systemUsers', which might serve a similar purpose in listing users, leaving room for ambiguity in a crowded toolset.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'systemUsers' or other user-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage based 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'retrieves a list' but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 is front-loaded and efficiently conveys 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the returned list contains (e.g., repository names, URLs, metadata) or any behavioral aspects like response format or error handling, which are crucial for a tool with no structured output documentation.
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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it could have mentioned if any implicit parameters (like authentication) are required, though not required for a high score given the schema completeness.
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 ('retrieves') and resource ('list of Git repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'remoteRepoInfo', which might provide similar repository information, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'remoteRepoInfo'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is required or if it lists all repositories accessible to the user.
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. 'Terminate' implies a destructive action, but it does not specify effects like session cleanup, authentication state changes, or potential side effects. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. 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?
Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'terminate'), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error conditions, or confirmation needs, which are crucial for a session termination tool in a complex environment with many siblings.
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 lack of inputs. The description does not add parameter details, which is unnecessary here, but it could have mentioned any implicit context (e.g., current session). Baseline is 4 due to no parameters.
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 'Terminate ABAP session' clearly states the tool's action (terminate) and target resource (ABAP session), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dropSession' or 'logout' alternatives, which would require more specific context about ABAP vs. general sessions.
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 (e.g., 'dropSession' or other session management tools), nor does it mention prerequisites or contexts for termination. It lacks explicit instructions on usage scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output, which are needed for full contextual understanding in a server with many trace-related siblings.
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%, meaning the input schema fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'withSystemEvents'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced 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 action ('Retrieves') and resource ('database access information for a trace'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesHitList', 'tracesStatements', or 'tracesList', which also retrieve trace-related information, 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. With many sibling tools related to traces (e.g., 'tracesHitList', 'tracesStatements'), there's no indication of context, 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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Clear' implies a destructive operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this affects user sessions, requires permissions, has side effects, or what 'local' means in this context. More behavioral context is needed 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 phrase that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, as a potentially destructive operation with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about what 'clearing' entails and any implications.
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 appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose.
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 'Clear local session cache' clearly states the action (clear) and target resource (local session cache). It's specific about what the tool does, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools since none appear to be cache-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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Check' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'health' entails (e.g., server status, API responsiveness, resource metrics), whether it requires authentication, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
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 purpose ('Check server health and connectivity'), making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'health' means in this system's context or what the expected output might be (e.g., status codes, metrics). For a diagnostic tool, more context on behavior and results would be helpful, though the low complexity keeps it from being severely incomplete.
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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately avoids mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's no parameter information to add 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 'Check server health and connectivity' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and target ('server health and connectivity'). It distinguishes this as a diagnostic/status tool rather than an operational one, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling health-related tools (none are listed among siblings).
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., after login), typical scenarios (e.g., troubleshooting connectivity issues), or what constitutes 'health' in this context. With many sibling tools available, the lack of usage context is a notable gap.
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 a list, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify details like pagination, sorting, filtering, authentication requirements, or rate limits. 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on return values, behavioral traits, or usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation.
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 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema by describing the return format, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 ('retrieves') and resource ('list of system users'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcUsers' or 'userTransports', which prevents a perfect score, but the core functionality is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atcUsers' or 'userTransports' in the sibling list. There's no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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:

[![MCP_ABAP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dachienit/MCP_ABAP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dachienit/MCP_ABAP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP_ABAP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dachienit/MCP_ABAP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dachienit/MCP_ABAP)

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/dachienit/MCP_ABAP'

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