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
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set covers distinct ABAP development tasks like debugging, transport management, and Git operations, but there is significant overlap in areas like refactoring (extractMethodEvaluate/Execute/Preview, renameEvaluate/Execute/Preview) and trace management (tracesCreateConfiguration, tracesDeleteConfiguration, tracesSetParameters), which could confuse agents about which specific tool to use for a given scenario. Descriptions help differentiate, but the sheer number of similar tools increases ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming conventions are mixed, with some tools using camelCase (e.g., abapDocumentation, atcChangeContact) and others using snake_case (e.g., debugger_attach, get_object_source), though many follow a verb_noun pattern. Deviations like 'dropSession' versus 'hasTransportConfig' reduce predictability, but the naming is generally readable despite the inconsistency.
Tool Count2/5
With 118 tools, the count is excessive for a single server, making it overwhelming and difficult to navigate. While ABAP development is a broad domain, this many tools suggests poor scoping, likely leading to agent confusion and inefficiency in tool selection, as many functions could be consolidated into fewer, more general tools.
Completeness4/5
The tool set appears highly complete for ABAP development, covering core areas such as object management, debugging, transport handling, Git integration, and refactoring. Minor gaps might exist in advanced features or edge cases, but the extensive coverage supports most development workflows without obvious dead ends, allowing agents to perform comprehensive tasks.
Average 2.5/5 across 114 of 118 tools scored. Lowest: 1.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions might be required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 5 required 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just three words, this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to provide necessary information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately brief. Every sentence should earn its place, but this description doesn't earn its place by providing useful 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 (5 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a sibling tool 'codeCompletion' that suggests alternatives exist), the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, when to use it, what parameters mean, or what behavior to expect. This is insufficient for any meaningful agent 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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 5 required parameters, the description provides zero information about what any parameter means or how they should be used. The description 'Performs full code completion' doesn't mention sourceUrl, source, line, column, or patternKey, leaving all 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 'Performs full code completion' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'codeCompletionFull'. It doesn't specify what 'full' means or how it differs from the sibling tool 'codeCompletion' (which presumably offers a different type of completion). The description lacks a clear verb+resource specification and fails to distinguish 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this 'full' completion is appropriate versus the sibling 'codeCompletion' tool, nor any context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios for invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.
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 three words, which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, as it lacks necessary details for effective tool use. It is front-loaded but insufficient in 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 complexity of 7 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide the necessary context for the agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly or interpret its results, making it incomplete for practical 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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameters. It does not explain what 'url', 'source', 'line', 'startCol', 'endCol', 'implementation', or 'mainProgram' mean or how they should be used, leaving all parameters semantically 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 'Find symbol definition' restates the tool name 'findDefinition' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. While it hints at locating definitions for symbols, it lacks specificity about what a 'symbol' means in this context (e.g., code identifiers, variables, functions) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'ddicElement', which may have overlapping purposes.
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 related to code analysis and object management (e.g., 'searchObject', 'codeCompletion', 'ddicElement'), 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.
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. 'Applies fix edits' implies a mutation operation but reveals nothing about permissions, side effects, reversibility, rate limits, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with potential destructive behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, but this brevity results in under-specification rather than effective communication. While front-loaded, it lacks substance, making it inefficient in conveying necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 2 required parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no insight into the tool's function, usage, or behavior, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('proposal' or 'source') is documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they interact, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Applies fix edits' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'fixEdits' without providing meaningful clarification. It mentions a verb ('applies') and resource ('fix edits'), but 'fix edits' is vague and doesn't specify what is being fixed or edited, leaving the 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. Given the sibling tools include 'fixProposals' and various syntax/rename/extract tools, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation from related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Runs a class' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it executes code, returns output, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. This is completely inadequate for a tool that presumably performs some execution operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being severely under-specified. While technically 'front-loaded' (the entire description is the first and only statement), it lacks the substance needed to be genuinely helpful. The structure is minimal but not effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's likely complexity (executing/running something), complete absence of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and 74 sibling tools in a development environment context, this description is completely inadequate. It provides none of the contextual information needed to understand what the tool does, how to use it, or what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the single parameter 'className' has no documentation in the schema. The description provides no information about this parameter - what format it expects, what values are valid, or what a 'class' represents in this context. With one undocumented parameter and no compensation in the description, this fails to add any semantic 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 'Runs a class' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'runClass' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what 'runs' means in this context (execution, testing, compilation?) or what resource is being acted upon beyond the generic term 'class'. Compared to sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'debuggerAttach', this provides no 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 many sibling tools available (like 'debuggerStep', 'runQuery', or 'syntaxCheckCode'), there's no indication of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'runClass'.
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' suggests a read operation, but there's no information about permissions required, rate limits, side effects, error conditions, or what format the fix proposals come in. The description doesn't explain what happens when proposals are retrieved or how they might be used.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just two words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity rather than being efficiently informative. There's no wasted text, but also insufficient 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?
For a tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, provides no parameter guidance, offers no behavioral context, and gives no indication of what results to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 required parameters (url, source, line, column), the description provides zero information about what these parameters mean or how they're used. The description doesn't mention any parameters at all, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of what inputs are needed to retrieve fix proposals.
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' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('fix proposals'), but doesn't explain what fix proposals are, what they're for, or how they differ from similar tools like 'fixEdits' or 'atcExemptProposal' in the sibling list.
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 multiple related tools in the sibling list (fixEdits, atcExemptProposal, atcChangeContact, etc.), there's no indication of what problem this tool solves, what prerequisites exist, or when other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action ('retrieves') without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple 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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter purposes, behavioral context, or usage guidelines, making it inadequate 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.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It provides no information about the meaning of 'objectUri', 'body', 'line', 'column', or 'language', leaving all five parameters undocumented and their purposes unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves ABAP documentation' restates the tool name 'abapDocumentation' in verb form, making it tautological. It specifies the action ('retrieves') and resource ('ABAP documentation') but lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'ddicElement' that might also retrieve documentation-related information.
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 with no information about appropriate usage scenarios compared to other tools in the 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'Checks' could imply a read-only operation, but this isn't stated explicitly. There's no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally - whether it performs validation, returns status information, requires authentication, has side effects, or what format the results take. For a tool with 3 parameters including optional credentials, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with just 4 words, this description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It fails to provide necessary information about what the tool actually does. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity - every sentence should earn its place, but this single sentence doesn't earn its place by providing meaningful guidance to an AI agent trying to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a Git repository checking operation with 3 parameters (including authentication credentials), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'checking' entails, what information is returned, whether authentication is required, what happens if credentials are omitted, or how this differs from other Git tools. For a tool that likely performs a non-trivial operation, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing about fundamental aspects of the tool's behavior and purpose.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here. The description doesn't explain how these parameters relate to the 'checking' operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Checks a Git repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'checkRepo'. It doesn't specify what 'checks' means in this context - whether it's verifying repository health, validating permissions, examining commit history, or something else. While it mentions the resource (Git repository), the verb is too vague to distinguish this from sibling Git tools like gitPullRepo or gitRepos.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple Git-related tools in the sibling list (gitCreateRepo, gitPullRepo, gitRepos, gitUnlinkRepo, pushRepo, stageRepo, switchRepoBranch, remoteRepoInfo), but the description offers no context about when checkRepo is appropriate versus these other Git operations. No prerequisites, conditions, or comparison points 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a high level ('Get code completion suggestions') without describing how it behaves: whether it's read-only or mutating, what permissions are needed, whether it has rate limits, what the response format looks like, or any side effects. This leaves critical operational context 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 at just three words, with no wasted verbiage. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get code completion suggestions'), though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the basic intent without redundancy.
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 code completion tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, error conditions, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves parsing code and generating suggestions, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 required parameters (sourceUrl, source, line, column) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. For example, it doesn't clarify if 'sourceUrl' and 'source' are alternatives or both required, or what 'line' and 'column' represent in the context of 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 'Get code completion suggestions' restates the tool name 'codeCompletion' in slightly different words, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what kind of code, for which language/environment, or what format the suggestions come in. Compared to sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' and 'codeCompletionFull', it fails to differentiate its specific scope or functionality.
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 sibling tools like 'codeCompletionElement' and 'codeCompletionFull' available, the description offers no context about differences in scope, granularity, or use cases. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for invoking 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 'Retrieves... information', which implies a read-only operation but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.
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 tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning none are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what 'sourceUrl', 'source', 'line', or 'column' mean or how they should be used, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 code completion element information' restates the tool name 'codeCompletionElement' in a slightly different phrasing, making it tautological. It doesn't specify what kind of information is retrieved or how it differs from sibling tools like 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionFull', 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'codeCompletion' or 'codeCompletionFull'. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but fails to do so. It does not reveal if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are returned, or any rate limits, leaving 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Retrieves fragment mappings.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and 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 complexity implied by three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what fragment mappings are, how to use the parameters, or what the tool returns, failing to provide necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'url', 'type', or 'name' represent or how they relate to fragment mappings, leaving parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Retrieves fragment mappings' restates the tool name with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('fragment mappings'), but lacks detail on what fragment mappings are or how they differ from sibling tools, 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 context, prerequisites, or sibling tools, offering no help for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Search for objects' gives no indication of whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what permissions might be required, how results are returned, or any rate limits or constraints. The description provides essentially zero behavioral information beyond the basic action implied by the word 'Search'.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is technically concise (only three words), it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The single phrase 'Search for objects' fails to provide the necessary context and detail that would make it genuinely helpful. Conciseness should not come at the expense of basic utility - this description is too brief to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a search tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what objects are being searched, what system or context this operates in, what the search capabilities are, or what format results are returned in. For a tool with this level of complexity and lack of supporting structured data, the description fails to provide even basic contextual information.
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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's already in the schema (query, objType, max). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate even though the description provides no parameter-specific 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 'Search for objects' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'searchObject'. It provides no specific information about what kind of objects are being searched, in what context, or what resources are involved. While it does include a verb ('Search'), it lacks any distinguishing details that would help differentiate this from other search-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple other tools in the sibling list that might involve searching (like 'findDefinition', 'findObjectPath', 'packageSearchHelp', etc.), but the description gives no indication of when this specific search tool is appropriate versus those other options. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails completely. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether it's resource-intensive, what format results come in, or any other behavioral characteristics.
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 verbiage and it's front-loaded with the core action.
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 3 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 tautological name restatement, provides no parameter guidance, and offers no behavioral context - leaving 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?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters (url, line, column), the description provides zero information about what these parameters mean or how they should be used. The schema shows url is required while line and column are optional, but the description offers no context about what constitutes a valid URL or how line/column parameters affect the search.
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' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'usageReferences' without providing meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of symbols, what context they're found in, or what constitutes a 'reference' - making it vague 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 absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (like findDefinition, findObjectPath, searchObject, etc.), there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown 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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, failing to provide necessary context for a tool with one parameter and unknown behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one parameter 'references' of type array but no details. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to explain what 'references' are, their format, or examples. This leaves the parameter 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 usage reference snippets' restates the tool name 'usageReferenceSnippets' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies a verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('usage reference snippets'), but lacks detail on what these snippets are or their context, failing to distinguish from sibling tools like 'usageReferences'.
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 the sibling tool 'usageReferences'. The description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('creates') without any details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or what the creation entails (e.g., whether it triggers a process, returns an ID, or has dependencies). 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.
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 three words, it fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than succinct. It lacks front-loaded details and does not earn its place with meaningful 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's complexity as a creation operation with no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what an ATC run is, the outcome of creation, or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and 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, with clear parameter documentation (variant, mainUrl, maxResults). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema's completeness justifies the baseline score of 3, as it adequately defines parameters without redundancy.
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 merely restates the tool name without elaboration. It specifies the verb ('creates') and resource ('ATC run'), but lacks detail on what an ATC run entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing', 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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference any of the many sibling tools (e.g., 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcCustomizing'), 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.
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 does not disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing source), error handling, or confirmation of changes, which is critical for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 necessary details for clarity.
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 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain inputs, behavior, or outputs, leaving the agent unable to use it 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It does not explain the purpose of 'objectSourceUrl', 'source', 'lockHandle', or 'transport', leaving all 4 parameters undocumented and their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Sets source code for ABAP objects' restates the tool name 'setObjectSource' almost verbatim, making it tautological. While it specifies the resource (ABAP objects) and action (sets source code), it lacks differentiation from siblings like 'getObjectSource' or details on 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a lock handle), exclusions, or related tools like 'getObjectSource' for retrieval, 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.
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. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. The single verb 'Attaches' provides minimal behavioral insight.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. While front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise.
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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'attaching' means operationally, what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it fits within debugging workflows, leaving critical gaps for agent 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%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining 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.
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 restates the tool name 'debuggerAttach' without adding specificity. It doesn't clarify what resource the debugger attaches to, what the attachment enables, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerListen or debuggerSetBreakpoints.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparison to other debugger-related tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens upon execution (e.g., submission to a review process). The description only states the action without context.
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. However, it is overly brief to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail for effective tool use, which slightly reduces its score from a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the tool's likely complexity (involving ATC exemptions with a nested object parameter), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose, process, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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.
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 meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema adequately covers 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 'Requests an ATC exemption' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'atcRequestExemption' without adding meaningful specificity. It does not clarify what an 'ATC exemption' entails, what resource it acts upon, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcChangeContact'.
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, context, or exclusions, and it does not reference sibling tools like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcChangeContact' that might handle related ATC exemption tasks.
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 'Accesses the DDIC repository' without explaining what this access entails - whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions are required, what happens when invoked, or what kind of response to expect. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, within the conciseness dimension, it earns maximum points for having zero wasted words and being front-loaded with the core statement. Every word in 'Accesses the DDIC repository' directly contributes to the description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the contextual completeness is severely lacking. For a tool that presumably interacts with a critical system component (DDIC repository), the description fails to provide necessary context about what the tool does, how it behaves, what it returns, or when to use it. The agent would struggle to understand this tool's role among 100+ 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% (the 'path' parameter is fully documented in the schema), so the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid DDIC path, provide examples, or clarify the parameter's role in the access operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Accesses the DDIC repository' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'ddicRepositoryAccess'. It provides a vague purpose without specifying what type of access (read, write, query, etc.) or what resource within the repository is being accessed. While it mentions the DDIC repository, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other repository-related 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'ddicElement' or 'checkRepo'. The agent receives no information about appropriate use cases or when this tool would be preferred over other repository access methods.
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. 'Sets breakpoints' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether breakpoints persist across sessions, what happens on errors, or rate limits. It lacks critical behavioral details for a tool with 10 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.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It fails to front-load essential context (e.g., resource or scope), leaving the agent with minimal actionable information. Conciseness should not come at the cost of 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?
For a mutation tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., side effects, error handling), usage context, or return values. Given the complexity and lack of structured support, the description fails to provide sufficient 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 documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., how 'breakpoints' array relates to 'debuggingMode') or provide examples. Baseline 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.
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 merely restates the tool name. It doesn't specify what resource breakpoints are set on (e.g., in a debugging session, for a specific program), nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerListeners'. 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugging session), exclusions, or related tools like 'debuggerDeleteBreakpoints' or 'debuggerAttach'. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine appropriate invocation 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 fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, how it interacts with debugger state, or what happens after stepping. The description is too minimal 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.
Conciseness4/5
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 action, though it lacks detail. While overly brief, it does not include unnecessary information, earning a high score 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 a debugger operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it affects debugger state, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with a debugging session, this minimal description 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%, meaning the input schema fully documents the parameters 'steptype' and 'url'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining step types or URL usage. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately covers 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 'Performs a debugger step' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'debuggerStep' without specifying what a debugger step actually does or what resource it acts upon. It provides no differentiation from sibling debugger tools like debuggerAttach, debuggerSetBreakpoints, or debuggerVariables, 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling debugger tools that might handle related operations. This leaves the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action 'find path' without detailing what the path represents, how it's returned, error conditions, or any side effects (e.g., read-only vs. mutative). This lack of information fails to compensate for the absence of annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with 'Find path for an object', a single sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, which slightly reduces its effectiveness but still reflects 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. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., path format, error responses) or behavioral aspects like read-only nature. For a tool with one parameter but missing structured context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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' clearly documented. The description does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as URL format examples or constraints. 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.
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' restates the tool name 'findObjectPath' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'find' and resource 'path for an object', but lacks detail on what type of object or path (e.g., file system path, URL path, repository path), and does not differentiate 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. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it works for specific object types or requires prior object identification. This 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.
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. 'Lock an object' implies a state-changing operation, but it fails to describe what locking entails (e.g., exclusive access, preventing modifications), potential side effects (e.g., blocking other users), error conditions, or response format. 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 extremely concise at just three words, with no wasted verbiage. It is front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word directly relates to the tool's function, earning a high score for efficiency.
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 insufficient for a tool that performs a state-changing operation like locking. It doesn't explain what locking means in this context, what happens after locking, how to verify success, or how to use the sibling 'unLock' tool. For a mutation tool with no structured support, this description is critically incomplete.
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 documentation: 'objectUrl' (required URL) and 'accessMode' (optional mode). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid URLs or what access modes might be available. However, with full 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 'Lock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what type of object (e.g., file, record, resource) or what system domain (e.g., version control, database) is involved, nor does it distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unLock' beyond the obvious directional difference.
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 write permissions), appropriate contexts (e.g., before editing), or related tools like 'unLock' for reversing the action. Without such information, an agent cannot make informed decisions 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. 'Sets trace parameters' implies a mutation/write operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects, rate limits, or what happens after parameters are set. 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 maximally concise at just three words. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, as a standalone attribute, the description is perfectly structured and front-loaded.
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 completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what trace parameters are, what values they accept, what the tool actually does with them, or what happens after setting them. Given the complexity implied by having sibling tools for trace configuration management, 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 the single 'parameters' parameter as 'The trace parameters.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain parameter format, syntax, examples, or constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the documentation work.
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 a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'tracesSetParameters'. It specifies the verb ('Sets') and resource ('trace parameters'), but provides no additional detail about what trace parameters are or what specific operation occurs. It doesn't distinguish this from sibling trace tools like tracesCreateConfiguration or tracesDeleteConfiguration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling trace tools (tracesCreateConfiguration, tracesDeleteConfiguration, tracesList, tracesHitList, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific parameter-setting tool is appropriate versus those other trace operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Releases a transport' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't describe what 'releasing' entails (e.g., changes transport status, triggers downstream processes), potential side effects, permission requirements, or error conditions. This leaves the agent with minimal actionable context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with just three words, 'Releases a transport.', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by parameters like 'ignoreLocks' and 'IgnoreATC', the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, usage context, or what 'releasing' means in this system, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('transportNumber', 'ignoreLocks', 'IgnoreATC') with basic descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining what 'locks' or 'ATC checks' are or why one might ignore them.
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 essentially restates the tool name 'transportRelease'. It doesn't specify what 'releasing' means operationally (e.g., making it available for import, completing a workflow step) or distinguish it from sibling 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's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., must be in a specific status), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'transportDelete' or 'createTransport' 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing output format, error conditions, permissions required, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool with unknown 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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks depth. This meets the criteria for conciseness despite being under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'class includes structure' returns, its format, or any behavioral context. For a tool with potential complexity among many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for 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?
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. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get class includes structure' restates the tool name 'classIncludes' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'class includes structure', but lacks detail on what 'includes structure' entails or how it differs from similar tools like 'classComponents' or 'objectStructure'.
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 sibling tools like 'classComponents' and 'objectStructure' that might retrieve related class information, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to inform tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Listens for debugging events', which does not reveal whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, how events are delivered (e.g., streaming, polling), or any side effects like resource consumption. 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 extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Listens for debugging events.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. While it lacks detail, it is structurally efficient without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with 6 parameters (4 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'listening' entails operationally, what events are captured, how results are returned, or any error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's 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 all parameters documented in the schema itself (e.g., 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId', 'ideId', 'user', 'checkConflict', 'isNotifiedOnConflict'). The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema 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.
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' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the verb 'listens' and resource 'debugging events', but fails to distinguish this tool from sibling debugging tools like 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerListeners', or 'debuggerSetBreakpoints', leaving the exact 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. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and with multiple sibling debugging tools available (e.g., 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerListeners'), the lack of usage guidelines makes it difficult for an AI agent to determine appropriate invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to do so—it does not indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens upon success/failure. The description lacks any behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by 'saves'.
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 to the point, though this brevity contributes to its lack of detail in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by stating the core action, but it may be overly 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 of a tool that saves settings (likely a mutation with persistence implications), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or what is returned. It does not compensate for the lack of structured data, 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 meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already provides adequate parameter 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 specificity. It identifies the verb ('saves') and resource ('debugger settings'), but lacks detail about what settings are saved, where they are saved, or how this differs from sibling debugger tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints or debuggerSetVariableValue.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any sibling tools that might be related, such as other debugger tools for managing breakpoints or variables. This leaves the agent with no information to make an informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without detailing permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. For a tool with no annotations, 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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, or differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in a complex environment with many alternatives.
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 two parameters ('objectUrl' and 'version'). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high.
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' restates the tool name 'objectStructure' with minimal elaboration—it's essentially a tautology. It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('object structure details'), but lacks specificity about what 'structure details' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'objectTypes' or 'ddicElement', making it 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., 'objectTypes', 'ddicElement', 'findDefinition'), the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Creates' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions needed, whether the creation is idempotent, what happens on conflicts, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation tool 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 - a single three-word sentence. While it's arguably too brief for a creation tool, every word earns its place by stating the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and 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 this is a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, whether there's a confirmation response, what permissions are required, or how this tool relates to other trace operations. For a mutation tool in a complex domain (traces) with many sibling tools, 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 single parameter 'config' documented as 'The trace configuration.' The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain what format the configuration should be in, what properties it should contain, or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3.
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 essentially restates the tool name 'tracesCreateConfiguration'. It specifies the verb 'creates' and resource 'trace configuration', but doesn't explain what a trace configuration is, what it's used for, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' or 'tracesSetParameters'. The purpose is stated but lacks meaningful 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 trace-related tools (tracesDeleteConfiguration, tracesSetParameters, tracesList, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when creation is appropriate versus deletion, listing, or parameter setting. 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Unlock') but fails to describe critical traits such as permissions required, side effects (e.g., whether unlocking affects other users), error conditions, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence ('Unlock an object'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, this brevity contributes to underspecification rather than effective communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details like behavioral context, usage prerequisites, and expected outcomes, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('objectUrl' and 'lockHandle') clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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 'Unlock an object' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'unLock' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb ('Unlock') and resource ('an object'), but lacks specificity about what type of object or system context, and does not 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 Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior lock operation), exclusions, or related tools like 'lock' from the sibling list, leaving the agent to infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Performs ADT discovery' reveals nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output looks like. 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 extremely concise at just three words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Performs ADT discovery') and contains no unnecessary elaboration. For a zero-parameter tool, this brevity is appropriate rather than under-specified.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context for understanding what this tool does. 'ADT discovery' is ambiguous without explanation of what ADT refers to or what discovery entails. The description doesn't compensate for the missing structured information that would help an agent use this 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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation since there are no parameters to document. It appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent 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 'Performs ADT discovery' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what ADT discovery entails, what resources are involved, or what the outcome is. While it includes a verb ('Performs'), it lacks specificity about what exactly is being discovered.
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 available (e.g., 'searchObject', 'findDefinition', 'objectTypes'), there's no indication of what makes 'adtDiscovery' distinct or in what contexts it should be preferred over other discovery/search-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. 'Loads object types' gives no information about what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it's a read operation, a cache operation, a refresh, or something else. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or what 'loading' entails. 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 extremely concise—just two words—and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for clarity, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word serves a 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. 'Loads object types' is too vague to understand the tool's behavior, return values, or context. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more operational detail to compensate, but it fails to do so.
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, meaning the schema fully documents that there are no inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict or confuse the parameterless nature, though it could theoretically mention why no parameters are needed.
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' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name 'loadTypes' with minimal elaboration. It specifies the verb 'loads' and resource 'object types' but provides no additional context about what 'object types' are or what 'loading' entails. This is a minimal restatement rather than a helpful 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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include 'objectTypes' (which likely retrieves object types) and other related tools, there is no indication of when 'loadTypes' is appropriate versus other options. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's specific use case.
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 only states the action ('Performs a package search help') without detailing what the tool does behaviorally—such as whether it returns search results, provides documentation, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it omits critical 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words, making it efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise—it lacks essential details that would make it more helpful. Despite this, it is front-loaded and wastes no space, earning a high score 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, its behavioral implications, or usage context. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, the description should provide more operational clarity to be considered adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not mention any parameters, but the input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'type' (required) and 'name' (optional). Since the schema fully describes the parameters, the baseline score is 3. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, but it does not need to compensate for gaps.
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—it essentially restates the tool name 'packageSearchHelp' with minimal elaboration. It lacks specificity about what 'package search help' entails, such as whether it searches for packages, provides help about searching packages, or assists with package-related queries. While it includes a verb ('Performs'), the resource and purpose remain vague, failing to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition'.
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 refer to sibling tools that might handle similar functions (e.g., 'searchObject' for general searches). 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Sets' implies a mutation/write operation, but the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions or authentication, if it's idempotent or destructive (e.g., overwrites existing configs), what happens on success or error, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—a single three-word sentence—with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Sets'), but this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. While efficient, it under-specifies rather than being optimally concise, as it omits necessary context that would help an agent use the tool effectively.
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 three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what transport configurations are, the system context (e.g., SAP or version control), expected outcomes, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely modifies critical system settings, this lack of detail is inadequate and could lead to misuse.
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) having clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain what a 'transport configuration' entails, how the URI relates to it, or what the ETag is used for (e.g., concurrency control). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate with any extra insights.
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'. It lacks specificity about what transport configurations are, what system or resource they belong to, or what the action entails beyond the generic verb 'sets'. While it indicates a write operation, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'createTransportsConfig' or 'getTransportConfiguration' 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 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 transport configuration to modify), compare it to sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' (for initial creation) or 'getTransportConfiguration' (for reading), or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Without any contextual cues, an agent would struggle to determine when this tool is the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. 'Deletes breakpoints' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to specify permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, effects on debugging sessions, or error handling. It adds 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?
The description is extremely concise with just two words, 'Deletes breakpoints', which is front-loaded and wastes no space. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, but for this dimension alone, it scores high due to zero verbosity.
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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and destructive nature), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error cases, and integration with sibling tools. For a mutation tool with multiple inputs, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 6 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'breakpoint', 'debuggingMode'). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, not explaining parameter relationships or usage. Baseline is 3 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.
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 kind of breakpoints (e.g., in a debugger session, for specific code), nor does it differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' or 'debuggerDeleteListener'.
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 prerequisites (e.g., an active debugger session), context (e.g., after setting breakpoints), or related tools like 'debuggerSetBreakpoints' for creation or 'debuggerDeleteListener' for other deletions. It lacks any 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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Publishes' implies a write/mutation action, but it lacks details on permissions, side effects, idempotency, or error handling. It does not disclose what 'publishing' means operationally (e.g., making it available, activating it).
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 zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of informativeness.
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 performs a mutation (publishing). It fails to explain the outcome, success conditions, or error scenarios, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results.
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 ('name', 'version') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles 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 'Publishes a service binding' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding specificity. It mentions the verb 'publishes' and resource 'service binding' but fails to explain what publishing entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'unPublishServiceBinding'.
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 prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it fails to reference the sibling 'unPublishServiceBinding' for contrast, leaving usage entirely ambiguous.
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 minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely performs analysis on code, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at 6 words, which is efficient. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity and lack of other documentation. Every word earns its place, but more words might be warranted.
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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools with similar names, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a syntax check entails, what the tool returns, or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for 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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'source code' which hints at the 'code' parameter, but doesn't explain the purpose of the other 4 optional parameters (url, mainUrl, mainProgram, version) or their relationships. This leaves most parameters semantically unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool performs an ABAP syntax check on source code, which is a clear purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'syntax check' and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl' or 'syntaxCheckTypes'.
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, when this check is appropriate, or how it differs from other syntax-checking 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.
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 a list', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes a 'dump' (e.g., error logs, data exports). This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined for a tool with potential data access implications.
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 is front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves a list of dumps'), making it immediately clear in structure. No extraneous information or redundancy is present.
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 for effective tool use. It fails to clarify what 'dumps' are, their format, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall context for selection and invocation 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 one optional 'query' parameter documented as filtering dumps. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it does not elaborate on query syntax or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers parameter details without description enhancement.
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 list of dumps' restates the tool name 'dumps' in a tautological manner. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'dumps', but lacks specificity about what 'dumps' are in this context, making it vague. It does not distinguish from siblings, many of which are also retrieval operations (e.g., 'gitRepos', 'tracesList').
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. With many sibling tools for data retrieval (e.g., 'tracesList', 'gitRepos'), the absence of differentiation 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 the full burden. 'Retrieves' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or what happens if no ticket exists. The description is too minimal 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though it lacks 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'reentrance ticket' is, why it's needed, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation 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.
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 verb, making it tautological. It does not specify what a 'reentrance ticket' is or what resource it pertains to, leaving the purpose vague. No differentiation from sibling tools is provided.
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, such as context, prerequisites, or alternatives. Given the many sibling tools (e.g., login, logout, transport tools), there is no indication of how this tool fits into workflows or when it should be selected over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'evaluates' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't specify if this is a read-only analysis, what the evaluation outputs (e.g., feasibility, impacts), or any side effects, permissions, or constraints, leaving critical behavior opaque.
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. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary detail for a tool with behavioral complexity.
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 analyzes rename operations. It fails to explain what evaluation entails, what results to expect, or how it differs from siblings like 'renameExecute', leaving 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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain how parameters relate to the rename evaluation (e.g., that they define the target location). 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.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' restates the tool name 'renameEvaluate' without specifying what evaluation entails or what resource is being evaluated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview' beyond the generic 'evaluate' verb, making it vague about the actual purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, 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.
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 'Perform ABAP syntax check', which implies a read-only analysis operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns specific error formats, or what happens upon execution (e.g., output format, success/failure indicators). 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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise. However, it could benefit from more structure if additional details were included.
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 syntax check tool with no annotations, no output schema, and poor parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly, what to expect in return, or how it differs from sibling tools, making it inadequate for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It mentions 'CDS URL' but does not explain what a CDS URL is, its format, or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
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 as 'Perform ABAP syntax check with CDS URL', which includes a verb ('Perform'), resource ('ABAP syntax check'), and method ('with CDS URL'). However, it's somewhat vague about what exactly a 'CDS URL' is and how it differs from other syntax check tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckTypes' among the siblings. It distinguishes itself by specifying 'CDS URL' but doesn't clearly explain what that entails.
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 'syntaxCheckCode' and 'syntaxCheckTypes', the description does not indicate specific scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool. It lacks any 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieves' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the transports are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if there are side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just four words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves') and object ('transports'). While this efficiency is commendable, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness, making it more under-specified than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's apparent purpose (retrieving data related to transports and configurations), the lack of annotations, absence of an output schema, and minimal description make this incomplete. The description doesn't explain what 'transports' are in this system, what format they're returned in, or how this tool relates to the many other transport-related sibling tools. For a tool that appears to be a core data retrieval operation, this level of documentation is insufficient.
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: 'configUri' (required configuration URI) and 'targets' (optional boolean for including target systems). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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 'Retrieves transports by configuration' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'transportsByConfig'. It specifies the verb 'retrieves' and resource 'transports', but lacks specificity about what 'transports' are or what 'by configuration' means in this context. Compared to sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration', 'transportConfigurations', or 'createTransportsConfig', it doesn't clearly differentiate its specific scope or purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' (likely listing configurations), 'getTransportConfiguration' (getting a specific configuration), and 'createTransportsConfig' (creating configurations), there's no indication of when this retrieval of transports by configuration is appropriate versus other transport-related tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative recommendations 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 full burden but adds nothing beyond the basic purpose. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be (e.g., list structure, pagination).
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 with zero wasted words. It's 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.
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 one parameter. It lacks essential context like behavioral traits, output details, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for reliable agent use despite the simple schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'url' documented as 'The URL of the class'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '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 from siblings like 'classIncludes' or 'objectStructure', 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. With many sibling tools like 'classIncludes', 'objectStructure', and 'findDefinition', 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.
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 ('previews') without detailing what the preview entails (e.g., dry-run, simulation, output format), side effects, permissions needed, or error handling, making it insufficient for a mutation-related tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, 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 the complexity of refactoring tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the preview outputs, how it interacts with siblings, or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for agent 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 'proposal' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 'Previews an extract method refactoring' states the action (preview) and the domain (extract method refactoring), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what exactly is being previewed (e.g., code changes, dependencies) or how it differs from siblings like 'extractMethodEvaluate' and 'extractMethodExecute', leaving room for ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose preview over evaluate/execute, or any context for its application, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool's function without detailing behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, what happens on invalid input, 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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured for its 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, details about the proposal), behavioral aspects, or usage context, which is insufficient for a tool that performs a check operation without structured output documentation.
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 does not add meaning beyond this, as it only repeats the tool's purpose without elaborating on parameter semantics. 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Checks if a given object is a proposal message,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('checks') and resource ('proposal message'), but does not differentiate it from siblings like 'atcExemptProposal' or 'atcRequestExemption,' leaving ambiguity about what constitutes a 'proposal message' in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the input must be a specific type of proposal (e.g., ATC exemption), and does not mention any sibling tools as alternatives, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'activate' but doesn't explain what activation does (e.g., compile, make available for runtime), whether it's reversible, what permissions are required, or what side effects might occur. The description lacks critical behavioral context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at just 6 words, which is efficient. However, this brevity comes at the cost of completeness - it's arguably too terse for a tool that performs a potentially significant system operation.
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 'activation' means operationally, what happens after activation, potential errors, or return values. Given the complexity implied by the parameter structure, 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't clarify the JSON array format further or explain the practical implications of the preaudit option.
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 'Activate ABAP objects using object references' states the action (activate) and target (ABAP objects), but is vague about what 'activate' means in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'activateByName' or explain what activation entails compared to similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'activateByName' or other object manipulation tools. The description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when this specific activation method is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('retrieves information'), but fails to detail aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned information, which are critical 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.
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 and avoids redundancy, though 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves information. It does not explain what information is returned, how it's structured, or potential errors, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'variant' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints on variant names, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced 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 an ATC check variant,' which clearly indicates its purpose as a read operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'atcCustomizing' or 'atcWorklists,' leaving ambiguity about its specific role within the ATC 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific variant name, or comparisons to other ATC-related tools, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action without detailing aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' entail (e.g., format, depth). 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more detail 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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'details' include, potential side effects, error conditions, or how it integrates with sibling tools. Given the complexity implied by the sibling list, more context is needed 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 does not add any semantic details beyond the schema, such as URL 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.
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 provides a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('collection feature'). However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl,' leaving ambiguity about its specific scope or how it differs from similar 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. The description lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, such as 'featureDetails' or 'findCollectionByUrl,' which might offer overlapping or related functionality.
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 'Create' implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 efficient. However, it could be more front-loaded with key details, but it's appropriately sized 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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a transport request is, the creation process, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results.
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 additional meaning or context beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 states the action ('Create') and resource ('transport request'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what a transport request entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'createTransportsConfig' or 'transportConfigurations', 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. With siblings like 'createTransportsConfig' and 'transportConfigurations', the description fails to indicate 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 mentions 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but fails to specify permissions, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, 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.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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 complexity of a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and what information is retrieved, making it incomplete 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, so parameters like 'path' and optional boolean flags are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for the parameters, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
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 clearly indicates a read operation with a specific resource (DDIC element). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' that might also retrieve information about ABAP objects, leaving the scope 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. Sibling tools like 'findDefinition' or 'objectStructure' might serve similar purposes, but the description offers no 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a destructive action ('stops') but doesn't clarify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if it terminates debugging sessions), error conditions, or what happens post-execution. 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.
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 overly terse, lacking necessary context for effective use, which slightly reduces its utility despite the clean 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'stops' entails operationally, potential impacts, or expected outcomes. Given the complexity implied by four required parameters, more detail is needed to guide proper 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 additional meaning about the parameters (debuggingMode, terminalId, ideId, user), such as their roles in identifying the listener to stop. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 'Stops a debug listener' clearly states the action (stops) and target (debug listener), avoiding tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'debug listener' is in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerListeners' or 'debuggerListen'.
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., must have an active listener), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'debuggerListen' (which likely starts a listener) or 'debuggerListeners' (which might list them).
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 does not specify what information is returned, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits or errors. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented, though it does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as by 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 Git repository tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what information is retrieved (e.g., metadata, branches, commits), potential authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool that likely returns structured data, the lack of output details or behavioral context makes it incomplete 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 clear documentation for 'repourl,' 'user,' and 'password.' The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra 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 tool 'retrieves information about an external Git repository,' which clearly indicates a read operation on a specific resource type. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'gitRepos' or 'remoteRepoInfo,' leaving ambiguity about their distinct purposes. The description is functional but lacks specificity in scope or output compared to similar 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. There are sibling tools such as 'gitRepos' and 'remoteRepoInfo' that might overlap in functionality, but the description does not mention them or clarify contexts like external vs. internal repositories. This absence of comparative or contextual advice limits 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 full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like whether this is destructive (likely yes, but unspecified), requires authentication, has side effects (e.g., affects local/remote state), or error conditions. This leaves critical gaps for safe invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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's overly concise to the point of under-specification, slightly reducing its effectiveness.
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 likely destructive operation (implied by 'Unlinks'), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, leaving 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.
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 'repoId' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, where to find the ID, examples). 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.
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 provides a basic understanding of purpose. However, it's vague about what 'unlinks' means operationally (e.g., disconnects from remote, removes local tracking) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'gitCreateRepo' or 'gitPullRepo' beyond the 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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., repository must exist, user permissions), when not to use it, or related tools for similar operations. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieval but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a codebase.
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 action, though it could be more structured with context or examples.
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 error cases, making it inadequate for a tool in a complex development 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'includeUrl' documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a relationship between 'include' and 'main programs,' so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.
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 specifies a verb ('retrieves') and resource ('main programs'), but it's vague about what 'main programs' and 'include' mean in this context. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'classIncludes' or 'findDefinition,' leaving ambiguity in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to includes, classes, and objects, the description lacks context 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 full burden. It mentions 'Get transport information', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'transport information' entails (e.g., format, scope). This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 is front-loaded and clear, though it could be more specific to improve utility 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and complex context among many transport-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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter relationships or usage. 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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get transport information for an object source', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('transport information'), but does not differentiate from siblings like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportConfigurations', leaving ambiguity about what specific transport information is retrieved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getTransportConfiguration' and 'transportConfigurations', the description lacks context on distinctions, 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 full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'retrieves,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the retrieval entails (e.g., format, data returned). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 appropriately concise. However, it lacks front-loading of critical details like context or differentiation, which slightly limits its effectiveness despite the 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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'transport reference' is, what data is returned, or how this tool fits among many transport-related siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters (e.g., how pgmid, obj_wbtype, and obj_name identify the object) or clarifying the optional tr_number. Baseline 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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'transport reference', which clarifies the basic action. However, it doesn't specify what a 'transport reference' is in this context or how it differs from similar tools like 'transportInfo' or 'transportConfigurations' in the sibling list, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to transports (e.g., transportInfo, transportConfigurations, createTransport), 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 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 'transports' entail (e.g., types, formats). 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as by adding brief context or differentiation.
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 'transports' are, the return format, or any behavioral aspects like pagination or errors. This leaves 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('user' and 'targets'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying user-specific retrieval, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 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 transports for a user,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportInfo' or 'transportsByConfig,' making the purpose somewhat vague in context. It's adequate but lacks specificity compared to alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'transportInfo' or 'transportsByConfig.' It mentions retrieving transports for a user but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative contexts, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation but doesn't specify what happens during validation (e.g., returns errors, warnings, or a success status), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any permissions/rate limits. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand quickly, which is ideal 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 complexity (validation with one parameter), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter details, behavioral outcomes, or usage context, making it insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'options'. It doesn't explain what 'options' should contain (e.g., validation rules, object type, or parameter values), leaving the parameter's meaning and format ambiguous beyond the schema's basic type.
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 validates parameters for a new ABAP object, which provides a clear purpose (verb+resource). However, it's somewhat vague about what 'validate' entails (e.g., syntax, semantics, or constraints) and doesn't differentiate from potential siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'checkRepo' that might also involve validation.
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., before object creation), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'checkRepo', 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the exemption proposal is returned in. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point 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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the exemption proposal is returned in, what data it contains, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output based solely on the brief description.
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 the single 'markerId' parameter. The description doesn't add any additional parameter context 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.
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), but it's somewhat vague about what exactly is retrieved. It distinguishes from obvious non-retrieval siblings like 'createAtcRun' or 'atcRequestExemption', but doesn't differentiate from other retrieval tools like 'atcWorklists' 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from related tools like 'atcRequestExemption' or 'atcWorklists'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what 'worklists' contain (e.g., findings, tasks). For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'worklists' are, their format, or how parameters like 'includeExempted' affect results. For a tool in a complex domain (ATC) with many siblings, more context is needed 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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of 'worklists' (which might relate to 'runResultId'). 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.
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 purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcCustomizing', or 'atcUsers', leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this retrieval operation from other ATC-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., needing an ATC run result), exclusions, or comparisons to other tools like 'atcCheckVariant' or 'atcCustomizing'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' implies a write operation but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens upon success. 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 with the core action and target, 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 incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, return values, error conditions, and how it fits within the broader context of sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (clas, lockHandle, transport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples, 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Create') and target ('test include for class'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it's vague about what a 'test include' is and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'createAtcRun', missing specific 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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a lock handle), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, 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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieves', implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify permissions needed, error conditions (e.g., invalid parent variable), or output format (e.g., structured data or raw text). 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves') and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of debugger operations and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'child variables' entail (e.g., properties, nested objects), how results are structured, or error handling. For a tool in a debugger context with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide an 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'parent' documented as 'The parent variable name.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid variable names or how to format the array. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately covers 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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('child variables of a debugger variable'), which clarifies the basic purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerVariables' or 'debuggerStackTrace', leaving ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval function 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), context (e.g., after setting breakpoints), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'debuggerVariables', which might retrieve different variable data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves') without details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response format, leaving 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 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a stack trace entails, how it is formatted, or any behavioral nuances, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with debugging systems.
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 the optional 'semanticURIs' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.
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 as 'Retrieves the debugger stack trace,' which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('debugger stack trace'), but does not differentiate from sibling debugger tools like debuggerGoToStack or debuggerVariables, 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. It lacks context such as prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to other debugger tools, 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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is read-only, what permissions are needed, how variables are returned, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with debugger state.
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, though it could benefit from more detail given the lack of annotations.
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 interactions and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'debugger variables' entail, how results are structured, or any dependencies, making it insufficient for reliable 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 the parameter 'parents' documented as 'An array of parent variable names.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.
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 action (retrieves) and resource (debugger variables), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'debuggerChildVariables' or 'debuggerSetVariableValue', leaving ambiguity about scope and relationship.
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 whether a debugger session must be active, or how it differs from related debugger tools like 'debuggerChildVariables'.
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 'evaluates' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutating, what permissions are required, if it has side effects, rate limits, or what the output entails. This leaves critical operational details unclear for a tool that likely interacts with code refactoring.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without fluff. 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 the complexity of code refactoring, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the evaluation returns (e.g., success metrics, warnings), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's full 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'uri' and 'range' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to the evaluation process or provide examples. 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 'Evaluates an extract method refactoring' states the action (evaluates) and target (extract method refactoring), but is vague about what 'evaluates' entails—it doesn't specify whether it checks feasibility, calculates metrics, or simulates outcomes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' and 'extractMethodPreview' by implying a preparatory step, but lacks specificity about 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 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 is provided. The description implies it's for evaluation, but doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., before execution), exclusions, or how it differs from 'extractMethodPreview'. Without context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and its 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'executes' a refactoring, implying a mutation or write operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, side effects, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely modifies code.
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 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 the complexity of a refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens upon execution, such as changes to code or return values, nor does it provide context about dependencies or error cases. This leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
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 'refactoring' described as 'The refactoring object.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as what constitutes a valid refactoring object or its expected format. 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.
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 provides a clear verb ('executes') and resource ('extract method refactoring'). However, it lacks specificity about what 'extract method refactoring' entails and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview,' 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a refactoring object from 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview,' or when to choose it over other refactoring tools like 'renameExecute.' This absence of context leaves 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 'retrieves' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the feature isn't found. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, 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.
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 input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool in a complex server with many alternatives, this lacks necessary 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'title' documented as 'The title of the feature.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, 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 'Retrieves details for a given feature' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (feature details), but it's vague about what 'details' entail and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'collectionFeatureDetails' or 'findDefinition' that might retrieve related information. 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'collectionFeatureDetails' (which might retrieve multiple features) and 'findDefinition' (which could search for definitions), the description offers no 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if the URL is invalid), rate limits, or what happens on failure. 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 zero waste—it directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose, 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 complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., configuration details, format), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely interacts with system configurations, more context is needed to ensure proper 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 the 'url' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of the URL or examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither compensates nor detracts.
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 specific transport configuration' clearly states the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('transport configuration'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'transport configuration' entails (e.g., settings, parameters, metadata) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'transportConfigurations' (which likely lists multiple) or 'hasTransportConfig' (which might check existence), leaving 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a URL), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'transportConfigurations' or 'hasTransportConfig', leaving the agent to infer usage based on context 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a creation operation but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for 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 the complexity of a Git repository creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, and what constitutes success, 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.
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 documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a repository creation, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like parameter relationships or examples.
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 'Creates a new Git repository' clearly states the verb and resource, but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like gitPullRepo or gitRepos. It specifies the action but lacks details about where or how the repository is created.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage instructions beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('check if exists') without revealing any behavioral traits such as what 'exists' entails (e.g., active configuration, user permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, potential side effects, or error conditions. This leaves critical behavioral 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words: 'Check if transport configuration exists'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word contributes to understanding 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks context on what 'transport configuration' refers to, what 'exists' means (e.g., configured vs. active), and what the output might indicate (e.g., boolean, status code). Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and result context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it implicitly confirms no inputs are required by describing a simple existence check. This aligns well with the schema, justifying a baseline score of 4 for parameter clarity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if transport configuration exists' clearly states the action (check) and target (transport configuration), but it's somewhat vague about what 'exists' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportConfigurations', which might provide more detailed information about transport configurations.
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 'getTransportConfiguration' and 'transportConfigurations' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for quick existence checks, permission verification, or other specific contexts. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'executes' a rename refactoring, implying a write operation. It fails to disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects, error handling, or rate limits, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. It 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'rename refactoring' involves, expected outcomes, or error conditions, failing to provide sufficient 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'refactoring' documented as 'The rename refactoring.' The description adds no 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 basic verb+action but is vague about what 'rename refactoring' entails or what resource it acts upon. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'renameEvaluate' or 'renamePreview,' 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'renameEvaluate' or 'renamePreview' in the sibling list. The description lacks 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. It states it's a preview operation, implying it's non-destructive and read-only, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or what the preview entails (e.g., dry-run effects, output format). This is inadequate for a tool with potential behavioral implications.
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 is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, 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 the complexity of a refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain behavioral traits, usage context, or what the preview outputs, leaving significant gaps for an AI 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.
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 documents both parameters (renameRefactoring and transport). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a rename refactoring proposal includes or how transport is used. 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 tool 'Previews a rename refactoring,' which clearly indicates its function as a preview operation for renaming. However, it lacks specificity about what resources or scope are involved (e.g., code elements, files) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like renameEvaluate or renameExecute, 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before executing a rename), or compare it to siblings like renameEvaluate or renameExecute, 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 only states the action ('retrieves') without detailing permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list of revisions with timestamps). For a read operation with no 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 is front-loaded with the core action ('retrieves revisions'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to 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 the complexity of retrieving revisions (which may involve version history or change tracking), the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist to clarify behavior or return values, and the description lacks details on what revisions are, how they are formatted, or any constraints. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.
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 ('objectUrl' and 'clsInclude') with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format of 'objectUrl' or the purpose of 'clsInclude' in the context of revisions. 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 states the tool 'retrieves revisions for an object,' which clearly indicates a read operation. However, it lacks specificity about what type of object (e.g., code, document, configuration) or what 'revisions' entail (e.g., version history, change logs), and it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'getObjectSource' that might also retrieve object-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an object URL, or compare it to other tools that might handle object history or versioning. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 'Stages changes' but does not explain what this entails (e.g., modifies the Git index, requires authentication via user/password parameters, or affects repository state). It lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error conditions, leaving 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. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to the basic understanding of 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 the complexity of a Git staging operation (a mutation with potential authentication needs), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not cover behavioral aspects like what 'stages' means, authentication requirements, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use the tool correctly 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 all parameters (repo, user, password) with their types and optionality. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the 'repo' object structure or when user/password are needed. 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.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Stages changes') and resource ('in a Git repository'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'stages changes' entails (e.g., adding files to the staging area) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'pushRepo' or 'gitPullRepo', which are related Git operations. 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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., after making local changes, before committing), exclusions, or related tools like 'pushRepo' for pushing staged changes. This leaves the agent without context for proper 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 but only states the action ('deletes') without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what happens on success/failure, which is critical for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Deletes a trace.') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context like what a trace is, deletion consequences, error handling, or return values, making it inadequate 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 the 'id' parameter documented as 'The ID of the trace.' The description adds no additional meaning 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 'Deletes a trace' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (trace), but it's vague about what a 'trace' is in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a trace ID), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'tracesDeleteConfiguration' or general deletion 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, or what 'hit list' entails (e.g., format, size, or pagination). 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, 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. It doesn't explain what a 'hit list' is, its format, or any behavioral context, which is inadequate for a tool with parameters and unclear sibling differentiation in a complex server 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameters (id and withSystemEvents). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a trace context, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra 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 action ('Retrieves') and target ('hit list for a trace'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a 'hit list' contains or how it differs from sibling trace tools like tracesList or tracesStatements, leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
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., tracesList, tracesStatements), the description lacks context for selection, such as what a 'hit list' is or its relation to other trace operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Retrieves') without detailing permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the returned list includes. For a read operation 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's 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 doesn't explain what 'traces' are, how the list is structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no 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 one optional parameter 'user' documented as 'The user.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as clarifying the user's role or how filtering works. 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's purpose ('Retrieves a list of traces') with a clear verb and resource, but it's vague about what 'traces' are in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesHitList' or 'tracesListRequests'. It provides a basic function 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'tracesHitList' or 'tracesListRequests' that might serve similar or related purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action without detailing permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that likely interacts with system traces.
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, though it could benefit from more detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a vague purpose, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'trace requests' are, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints, leaving the agent with 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'user' documented as 'The user.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining how 'user' filters the list. Given high schema coverage, a 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 ('a list of trace requests'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it's vague about what 'trace requests' are and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', 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 such as 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for invocation, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieves statements for a trace,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, size). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unclear.
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 statements for a trace.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This efficient structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's intent without unnecessary 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 of trace-related operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'statements' are, how they are returned, or any behavioral aspects like side effects or errors. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 'id' documented as 'The ID of the trace' and 'options' as 'Options for retrieving statements.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples of options or ID formats. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is provided.
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 (retrieves) and resource (statements for a trace), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'statements' are (e.g., log entries, SQL queries, or other data) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesList' or 'tracesHitList', which might handle related trace data. This vagueness prevents a higher 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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a trace ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'tracesList' or 'tracesDbAccess'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate, leading to potential misuse.
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 permissions needed, side effects (e.g., if this affects transport status), error conditions, or response format, which is inadequate for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, errors, or results, failing to compensate for the missing structured data, which could lead to misuse 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'transportNumber' and 'user' are required, matching the baseline for 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 states the action ('Adds') and resource ('user to a transport'), which is clear but generic. It doesn't specify what 'transport' means in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'createTransport' or 'transportSetOwner', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., if the transport must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'transportSetOwner' for ownership changes, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, side effects, or error handling. It lacks critical context for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with a single sentence, 'Deletes a transport.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what 'transport' entails, deletion consequences, or response format, leaving significant gaps for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'transportNumber' is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Deletes a transport' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (transport), but it's vague about what a 'transport' means in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'deleteObject' or 'transportRelease', 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 like 'deleteObject' or 'transportRelease', nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description offers only the basic function without 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 the action ('unpublishes') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting dependent services), or what happens on success/failure. 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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, efficiently conveying the core action without unnecessary words or structure issues.
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 mutation tool. It lacks details on behavior, outcomes, error handling, and how it relates to siblings like 'publishServiceBinding'. For a tool that likely alters system state, this minimal description leaves too many contextual gaps 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%, with clear descriptions for 'name' and 'version' parameters. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints), 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 'Unpublishes a service binding' clearly states the verb ('unpublishes') and resource ('service binding'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'unpublishing' entails (e.g., making it unavailable, removing from a catalog) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'publishServiceBinding' beyond the 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the binding must be published first), consequences, or related tools like 'publishServiceBinding' for context. The description is standalone 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 lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with undocumented 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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and output, making it incomplete 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%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It mentions 'source code for ABAP objects' but doesn't explain what 'objectSourceUrl' or 'options' represent, their formats, or examples, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and the resource ('source code for ABAP objects'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'findDefinition' or 'searchObject' that might also retrieve code-related information, preventing 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 'findDefinition' or 'setObjectSource', there's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or distinctions, leaving the agent without contextual 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 'Get[s]' information, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). 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 with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, avoiding unnecessary elaboration while conveying the essential action and target.
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, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough context for the agent to reliably use the tool, missing details on parameter meaning, behavioral traits, and output format. For a tool with one parameter and no structured support, more explanatory content is needed.
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 in the schema. The description does not add any semantic information about this parameter, such as what 'objectUrl' represents (e.g., a URL format, specific object identifier), its expected format, or examples. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, making parameter usage unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('registration information for an ABAP object'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'objectStructure' or 'objectTypes', which might also retrieve object-related information, 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. With many sibling tools that might retrieve object-related data (e.g., 'objectStructure', 'findDefinition'), there is no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'objectRegistrationInfo', 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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if activation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing versions), requires specific permissions, has side effects (like triggering transports), or what happens on failure. 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, clearly front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and usage context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying 'objectName' and 'objectUrl' are required for activation, but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or how 'mainInclude' and 'preauditRequested' affect the process.
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 resource ('an ABAP object'), specifying it uses 'name and URL' for identification. It distinguishes from generic 'activateObjects' by focusing on name-based activation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'deleteObject' or 'setObjectSource'.
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 'activateObjects' (which might handle bulk activation) or other object manipulation tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the object must be locked or in a specific state.
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 'Changes,' implying a mutation, but doesn't specify permissions required, whether the change is reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost 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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral details (e.g., success/error responses), usage context, and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields, leaving significant gaps for 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('itemUri' and 'userId') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what an 'ATC finding' is or how the contact change affects it, 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 action ('Changes') and the target ('contact for an ATC finding'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcContactUri' or 'atcRequestExemption', which might involve ATC contacts or findings in different ways, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing ATC finding), exclusions, or related tools like 'atcContactUri' for retrieving contact info, 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 retrieves data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format of the contact URI). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use 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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no 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. It does not explain what a 'contact URI' entails, how it is formatted, or any behavioral aspects like authentication needs. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to ensure reliable 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 'findingUri' clearly documented. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints on the URI format. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 ('contact URI for an ATC finding'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcChangeContact' or 'atcUsers', which might handle related ATC contact 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, such as other ATC-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, scenarios, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action ('retrieves'), implying a read-only operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'ATC customizing information' entails (e.g., format, scope, or whether it's static vs. dynamic data), which is inadequate 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 easy to parse and front-loaded. It directly states the tool's function without fluff, which is ideal for conciseness given the simple nature of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective use. It doesn't explain what 'ATC customizing information' includes (e.g., configuration settings, user data, or system parameters), how results are structured, or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is given as it efficiently handles the no-parameter case without unnecessary elaboration.
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 customizing information' clearly states the action (retrieves) and resource (ATC customizing information), providing a basic understanding of purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'atcCheckVariant', 'atcContactUri', or 'atcWorklists' that also relate to ATC functionality, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., whether it's for general ATC settings vs. specific configurations), 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 states the tool 'retrieves' details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, pagination). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation support.
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, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how errors are handled, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps despite the simple purpose. This is insufficient for a 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.
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 ('binding' and 'index') with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a 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.
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 ('details of a service binding'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from potential sibling tools like 'featureDetails' or 'collectionFeatureDetails' that might also retrieve details about different entities, leaving some 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. With many sibling tools present, such as 'featureDetails' or 'objectStructure', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Creates' implying a write operation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects, or response format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and 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 no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point, 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 complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'transport configurations' entail, how creation works, or what to expect in return, making it incomplete for effective 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 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 if parameters are implied or handled differently, keeping it slightly above baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Creates transport configurations' states the action (creates) and resource (transport configurations), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what transport configurations are or differentiate from siblings like 'setTransportsConfig' or 'getTransportConfiguration', leaving the purpose somewhat ambiguous.
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 'setTransportsConfig' or 'getTransportConfiguration'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't explain what 'navigates' entails (e.g., whether it changes the current execution context, updates debugger UI, or requires specific permissions). For a debugger operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its effects and requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, 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 debugger navigation tool, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., side effects, error conditions), usage context, and what happens after navigation (e.g., whether variable views update). This makes it incomplete 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'urlOrPosition' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid URLs or position formats, or how this relates to stack entries. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('navigates to') and target ('specific stack entry in the debugger'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling debugger tools like debuggerStep or debuggerStackTrace, but the verb 'navigates' suggests movement within a stack rather than stepping through execution or retrieving stack data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active debugger session), exclusions, or related tools like debuggerStep or debuggerStackTrace that might be used in similar debugging contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Retrieves') but doesn't describe what a 'debugger listener' is, how the list is formatted, whether it's paginated, or any permissions or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 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 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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling debugger tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how this tool fits into broader debugging workflows, leaving the agent under-informed.
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 (e.g., 'debuggingMode', 'terminalId'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or typical values. 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of debugger listeners'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling debugger tools like 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerDeleteListener', or 'debuggerListen', which could have overlapping or related 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 multiple debugger-related siblings (e.g., 'debuggerAttach', 'debuggerDeleteListener'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Sets the value' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires debugger to be active, what permissions are needed, if changes are temporary/permanent, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation 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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point 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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the variable, what the return value might be, error conditions, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of debugger operations and lack of structured information, 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 both parameters (variableName and value) adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 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 ('Sets') and target ('value of a debugger variable'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like debuggerSetBreakpoints or debuggerVariables, but it's specific enough to understand what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage 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. There are multiple debugger-related sibling tools (debuggerSetBreakpoints, debuggerVariables, debuggerChildVariables, etc.), but the description offers no context about when this specific variable-setting operation is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool deletes an object, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, system impacts, 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, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. It efficiently conveys the essential 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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to safely and effectively invoke the tool.
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 (objectUrl, lockHandle, transport). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying deletion targets an 'ABAP object', which aligns with the schema's 'objectUrl'. Baseline 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.
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 resource ('an ABAP object from the system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other destructive operations like 'transportDelete' or 'unPublishServiceBinding' among the sibling tools, preventing 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, prerequisites (e.g., needing a lock handle), or consequences of deletion. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'transportDelete', 'unPublishServiceBinding'), this lack of context 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 the full burden. It states 'retrieves' which implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what format the list returns. 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 front-loaded and 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 a simple purpose, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'feeds' are, the return format, or any behavioral context. For a tool in a complex server with many siblings, more detail is needed to ensure proper 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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't contradict or add unnecessary 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 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 like 'gitRepos' or 'objectTypes' that might also retrieve lists of items.
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 that retrieve data (e.g., 'gitRepos', 'objectTypes'), the description lacks context about specific use cases, 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'finds' something, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the URL is invalid. 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 is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, error cases, and return values, which are crucial for a tool that likely queries a system. For a tool with one parameter but no structured context, more information is needed to be fully 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?
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. Given the high schema coverage, a 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 action ('Finds') and resource ('a collection by its URL'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'searchObject' or 'findDefinition', which might also involve finding/locating entities, so it doesn't fully distinguish 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 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 'searchObject' and 'findDefinition', there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using this tool, 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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('pulls changes') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs (implied by user/password params), potential side effects (e.g., merging changes), error conditions, or response format. 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (Git operation with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'pulls changes' entails operationally, authentication requirements, or expected outcomes, leaving 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.
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 parameters (repoId, branch, transport, user, password). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors, but 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 'Pulls changes from a Git repository' clearly states the action (pull) and resource (Git repository), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gitCreateRepo' or 'pushRepo' by focusing on pulling changes, but it doesn't specify scope or constraints beyond the basic verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., repository setup), exclusions, or comparisons to other Git-related tools like 'pushRepo' or 'stageRepo', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose what happens on success (e.g., session creation, token return), failure modes, security implications, or side effects like session persistence. This is inadequate for a critical authentication tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of efficient communication 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 complexity of authentication (a security-critical operation) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, success status) or behavioral expectations, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely.
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 semantics, but that's acceptable here since there are no parameters to explain. A baseline of 4 reflects that the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.
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 'Authenticate with ABAP system' clearly states the action (authenticate) and target (ABAP system), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what type of authentication (e.g., session-based, token-based) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'logout' or 'reentranceTicket' that might handle related authentication flows.
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., required credentials), when authentication is needed in a workflow, or how it relates to tools like 'logout' or 'reentranceTicket'. This leaves 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'retrieves' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what format the contents are returned in, or if there are any side effects like caching. The description is minimal and lacks important 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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward purpose and doesn't bury the main action in 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?
For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'contents' means in this context, what format they're returned in, or provide any examples. The agent would need to guess about the return structure and operational 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 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 ('retrieves') and resource ('contents of a node in the ABAP repository tree'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'tableContents' or 'objectStructure', which might also retrieve content-related data from the repository.
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', 'objectStructure', and 'getObjectSource' that might retrieve different types of content, there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('retrieves'), implying a read operation, but fails to describe what is returned (e.g., format, structure), any limitations (e.g., scope, permissions), or side effects, which is insufficient 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 extremely concise with just two words ('Retrieves object types'), front-loaded and without any wasted language. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource in minimal 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 implied by the many sibling tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'object types' are, what the retrieval entails, or the return format, leaving significant gaps for the agent to understand the tool's full context and behavior.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.
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 (retrieves) and resource (object types), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't specify what 'object types' refers to in this context or how it differs from sibling tools like 'loadTypes' or 'syntaxCheckTypes', 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on its appropriate application among many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Pushes changes' implies a write/mutation operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, potential side effects (e.g., remote updates), error conditions, or what constitutes successful execution. This leaves significant gaps for agent 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool definition and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'changes' means, authentication requirements, success/failure responses, or how it relates to sibling Git operations. The agent lacks sufficient context for reliable 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 additional parameter context beyond the generic 'changes' reference, which doesn't clarify the purpose of 'repo', 'staging', 'user', or 'password' 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.
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 ('to a Git repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., staged changes), sequencing, or appropriate contexts for invocation.
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 the action but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is read-only or can modify data, what permissions are required, potential side effects (e.g., data changes), error handling, or output format. For a SQL execution tool, 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 and target, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding 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 the complexity of executing SQL queries (potential for data mutation, security implications) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like safety, permissions, result format, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (sqlQuery, rowNumber, decode). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying SQL execution, which is already clear from the parameter names. 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 clearly states the action ('Runs') and target ('a SQL query on the target system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings that might also execute queries or interact with databases, such as 'tableContents' or 'ddicRepositoryAccess', which could 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 like 'tableContents', 'ddicRepositoryAccess', or 'searchObject', there's no indication of whether this is for raw SQL execution, specific database types, or preferred over other query methods. This leaves the agent to guess based on context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication (though 'user' and 'password' parameters imply it), potential side effects like local changes, error conditions, or what happens if the branch doesn't exist (hinted by the 'create' parameter). 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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's 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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication needs, error handling, side effects, and expected outcomes, leaving the agent with incomplete 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 action ('Switches') and target ('branch of a Git repository'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitPullRepo' or 'pushRepo' that also interact with Git repositories, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gitPullRepo' or 'stageRepo', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or repository state. It lacks any context about appropriate use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple 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 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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return format, error handling, or usage context, leaving the agent with incomplete information to invoke it correctly 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately documents parameters like 'ddicEntityName' and 'rowNumber' without needing extra explanation in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Retrieves') and resource ('contents of an ABAP table'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodeContents' or 'ddicElement' which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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 available (e.g., 'nodeContents', 'ddicElement', 'runQuery'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'retrieves' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'database access information' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'database access information' includes, the format of the response, or any side effects. For a retrieval tool in a complex domain (traces), 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a 'trace' is or how 'system events' relate to database access. 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 verb ('retrieves') and resource ('database access information for a trace'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesHitList' or 'tracesStatements', 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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 full burden. It states 'Deletes' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, achieving maximum clarity in minimal 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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like success/error responses, confirmation requirements, or impact on related data (e.g., if traces are also deleted). This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool 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 'id' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or sourcing hints, but the schema suffices, so 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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a trace configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'tracesDelete' or 'deleteObject', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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 sibling tools like 'tracesDelete' and 'deleteObject' present, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions, 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action without detailing permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's safe/read-only. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool in a complex environment.
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 for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and in a complex server with many siblings, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what 'transport configurations' entails, how results are structured, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for reliable agent 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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score above minimum.
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 action (retrieves) and resource (transport configurations), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig', leaving ambiguity about what makes this specific tool unique.
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 'getTransportConfiguration' or 'transportsByConfig'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering minimal help 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 for behavioral disclosure. While 'Sets' implies a mutation/write operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires special permissions, if it's reversible, what happens to the previous owner, or what the expected outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 - a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. There's zero waste or redundancy in the phrasing.
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 insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after execution (success/failure indicators), permission requirements, side effects, or error conditions. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and outcomes based solely on the verb 'Sets' and the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself ('transportNumber' and 'targetuser'). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain format requirements, relationship between parameters, or provide examples. With complete 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 action ('Sets') and resource ('owner of a transport'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'transportAddUser' or 'transportRelease' by focusing specifically on ownership assignment. However, it doesn't specify what a 'transport' is in this context, which slightly limits clarity.
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' (which might add users without setting ownership) and 'transportRelease' (which might release transports), there's clear potential for confusion about when ownership setting is appropriate versus other transport-related operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'retrieves' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, what format the definitions are returned in, or whether this is a simple lookup or complex query. 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 appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the core purpose immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete but leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what annotation definitions are, what they're used for, or what the return format looks like. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context would be helpful.
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 (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
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 action (retrieves) and resource (annotation definitions), but it's somewhat vague about what annotation definitions are in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings, which include various retrieval operations like getObjectSource, objectStructure, and ddicElement.
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 99 sibling tools including many that retrieve metadata or definitions (e.g., findDefinition, objectTypes, featureDetails), the description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or what makes this tool unique.
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 a list or single item, or involves any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves key behavioral traits unclear.
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 ('retrieves'), making it easy to scan and understand quickly. This is 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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It doesn't explain what 'syntax check types' are or what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of strings or objects). For a retrieval tool with no structured output documentation, more context would improve completeness.
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's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info, and it correctly implies no inputs are required.
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 syntax check types' states a clear verb ('retrieves') and resource ('syntax check types'), but it's vague about what 'syntax check types' actually are (e.g., categories, configurations, or options). It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'syntaxCheckCdsUrl', which also relate to syntax checking but have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before or after other syntax checks), or sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' that might be used for different aspects of syntax checking. Without this, users must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'formats' implies a non-destructive operation, it does not specify whether the tool requires specific permissions, how it handles errors, or what the output looks like (e.g., formatted code or a success message). This leaves 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: 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no unnecessary words or redundancy. This makes it easy to grasp quickly without wasting space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple input schema with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output expectations. Given the low complexity and absence of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but could be more informative to fully guide 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 'source' parameter clearly documented as 'The ABAP source code to format.' The description adds no additional semantic details beyond this, such as formatting rules or examples. 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.
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: 'Formats ABAP code using the pretty printer.' It specifies the action (formats) and the resource (ABAP code), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'syntaxCheckCode' or 'setObjectSource', which might also involve code manipulation, so it misses the highest 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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing valid ABAP code, or compare it to siblings like 'syntaxCheckCode' for validation or 'setObjectSource' for updating code. Without this context, users might struggle to choose 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 full burden. It states it 'retrieves information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements (though user/password params hint at this), rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned. This is inadequate for a tool with potential auth needs.
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. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a tool that might involve authentication and returns unspecified information, it lacks completeness. It's adequate as a starting point but leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (repo, user, password). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('information about a remote Git repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'gitRepos', which appear to be related Git operations, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' and 'gitRepos' present, there's no indication of how this tool differs in scope or context, 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 states it 'retrieves a list' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'system user' versus other user types. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
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 for 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. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., user attributes, format), how results are structured, or any limitations. For a read operation in a complex environment with many sibling tools, this leaves too much undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no filtering or options are available by not mentioning any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.
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 purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling user-related tools (like 'atcUsers' or 'transportAddUser'), 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. With many sibling tools present (including 'atcUsers' which might also retrieve users), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or distinctions that would 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 'Retrieves a list,' implying a read-only operation, but does not specify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what the returned list includes. 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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's purpose without 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), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details on behavior and return values, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in context 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 information, which is acceptable here, but it could have mentioned any implicit constraints (e.g., no filtering options). Baseline is 4 for zero 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 verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of ATC users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'systemUsers' or 'atcWorklists', which might have overlapping or related functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools such as 'systemUsers' and 'atcWorklists', there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'atcUsers', 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 full burden. It mentions 'clear' (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, affects user state, has side effects, or what 'local session cache' entails. More 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 sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without 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?
For a 0-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on effects, return values, or error conditions that would be helpful given the tool's potential impact.
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. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it meets baseline expectations without redundancy. No parameters to document.
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 (local session cache). It's specific about what gets cleared, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools since no obvious cache-related siblings exist in the list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios. The description only states what it does, not when it should be invoked.
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 a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), rate limits, or if it's limited to specific repository types (e.g., local vs. remote). 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of Git repositories'), making it immediately understandable without 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. However, it lacks context about the return format (e.g., what fields are included in the list) and doesn't address potential complexities like authentication or scope, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly in a broader workflow.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since it doesn't mislead or omit necessary parameter information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of Git repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' or 'remoteRepoInfo' that might also provide repository information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 sibling tools like 'gitExternalRepoInfo' and 'remoteRepoInfo' that might retrieve specific repository details, there's no indication of whether this is for listing all repositories, filtered ones, or how it differs from other Git-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks health and connectivity but lacks details on what specific metrics are returned, whether it performs active tests or passive checks, error handling, or any side effects. 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 easy to parse and understand quickly. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, achieving maximum efficiency in communication.
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 incomplete. It lacks details on what 'health and connectivity' entails, return values, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively in a server 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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details, which is appropriate, but it could have mentioned if any implicit inputs are required (e.g., server context). Baseline is 4 due to the lack of 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('server health and connectivity'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from potential sibling tools that might also perform health checks or connectivity tests, though none are explicitly listed 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 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, timing, or context for usage, such as during troubleshooting or system monitoring, leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios 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, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this ends all sessions, requires re-authentication, affects unsaved work, or has side effects like clearing caches. 'Terminate' implies a destructive operation, but specifics are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 0-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what happens post-logout or error conditions, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full 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 with 100% schema coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but that's acceptable here—baseline 4 applies as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Terminate') and target ('ABAP session'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'dropSession' or 'login', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 'dropSession' (a sibling tool) or when not to use it. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., must be logged in first) or consequences of termination.
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-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dachienit/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dachienit/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

Latest Blog Posts

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

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dachienit/mcp-server'

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