Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Clear cached data' implies a destructive or refresh action, but the description does not state whether clearing is reversible, what happens to active sessions, performance impacts, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation-style tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, but it is a bare fragment that omits necessary context. It is concise to the point of being under-specified rather than optimally structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only a minimal three-word description, the definition is incomplete for a tool that clears cache. It does not explain the types of cache available (beyond the enum name), when clearing is safe, or what the result of the operation is.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'type' parameter has an enum with a clear schema description. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (clear) and resource (cached data), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it does not specify the scope or kind of cache beyond the parameter enum, nor does it differentiate from any sibling (none of which deal with caches).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives exist. An agent must guess whether clearing cache is appropriate or what side effects it may have.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 no mutation semantics, no required permissions, no side effects, no response format. 'Create a new record' is a tautology that adds nothing beyond the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one barely adds value beyond the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain required database/layout context, the shape of fieldData, or what happens on success/failure. It leaves the agent to rely entirely on the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

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 three parameters (database, layout, fieldData). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a new record' restates the tool name (fm_create_record) almost verbatim. It gives a vague verb+resource but provides zero differentiation from siblings like fm_update_record or fm_delete_record beyond the obvious create/update/delete split.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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. 'Delete a record' signals a destructive write, but it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, side effects on related data, or whether confirmation is needed—critical omissions for a deletion tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is structurally concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. For a destructive tool with three required parameters and no annotations, a bare 'Delete a record' fails to earn its place by conveying necessary context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations, no output schema, three required parameters, and destructive semantics, the description is completely inadequate. It omits permissions, reversibility, error behavior, and any usage context an agent would need to invoke it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

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 database, layout, and recordId fully. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

State a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('record'), so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many other record-level siblings (fm_update_record, fm_create_record, fm_query_records), leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 fm_update_record or fm_create_record, and it offers no warnings or prerequisites for a destructive operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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 does not say what 'detailed metadata' contains, whether any fields are expensive or cached, or whether permissions are required, leaving a read tool's behavior largely undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what metadata is returned and in what shape, but it does not. For a metadata-retrieval tool the payload is the whole point, so this leaves a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the layout string plus the MAIN-only database enum are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming-convention detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: get detailed metadata for a specific layout. An agent can identify the operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling fm_get_metadata, so the scope distinction must be inferred from the name alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus fm_get_metadata, fm_get_scripts, or fm_list_databases, and no stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and the required layout parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an active connection, what the response contains, or any rate-limit/caching behavior. Only the implicit 'Get' verb hints at a read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter lookup, though the 'layouts/tables' parenthetical is ambiguous rather than informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

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 too thin: it neither clarifies the overlapping scope with fm_get_layout_metadata nor describes what metadata is returned. The agent cannot confidently route between the metadata-related siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'database' parameter is a fully documented enum constrained to MAIN, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a verb (Get) and resource (database metadata) with a parenthetical hint of layouts/tables, so the basic purpose is legible. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling fm_get_layout_metadata, which sounds like it returns the same layouts information, leaving the agent unsure which to pick. The parenthetical also raises doubt about whether tables are truly in scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No indication of when to call this versus fm_get_layout_metadata, fm_list_databases, or fm_get_scripts. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives despite several closely related siblings existing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get list' implies a read, but the description says nothing about scope (whole file vs. current layout), whether the result is cached, or permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a metadata-fetching tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to under-specification than to exemplary conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the definition is minimally viable, but with no annotations and no output schema it should at least clarify what 'available scripts' are scoped to and how they relate to siblings like fm_run_script.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single 'database' parameter is documented with an enum), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about what the database argument selects beyond what the schema already states.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('Get list') and resource ('available scripts'), so an agent can tell broadly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings such as fm_get_metadata or fm_get_layout_metadata, which could plausibly also enumerate scripts, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus fm_get_metadata, fm_get_layout_metadata, or fm_run_script, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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, and it says nothing about side effects, permissions, or connection prerequisites. It does not even confirm the implied read-only nature of 'List'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is padded or buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter list tool the statement of intent is sufficient to invoke, but with no output schema the description never indicates what a database entry looks like (name, ID, path) or how many to expect. Minimal but adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the name of the resource being listed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured FileMaker databases'), making the operation legible at a glance. It is clearly distinct in subject matter from record-oriented siblings like fm_query_records, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as fm_get_metadata or fm_test_connection, nor any stated precondition or follow-up. The agent must infer that this is a discovery call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not that it is a read-only operation, not whether results are paginated (despite limit/offset params), not caps or default page sizes. For an unannotated 6-parameter query tool this is a serious gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is economical, though arguably over-terse given the tool's filtering complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain read-only nature, pagination expectations, and the filter/sort semantics. It supplies none of these, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

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 six parameters, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's mention of filtering and sorting loosely maps to the query and sort params but adds no syntax, defaults, or semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear verb+resource ('Query records') with the added scope of filtering and sorting. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the write-oriented siblings (fm_create_record, fm_update_record, fm_delete_record), though it never names them explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what 'advanced filtering' means in practice. An agent must infer that this is the general read path for records without any explicit routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: it does not say whether the script can mutate records, whether it is read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, or how errors are surfaced. For a tool that runs arbitrary server-side scripts, 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity stems partly from under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter, mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits side effects, return behavior, and error handling. An agent has almost nothing to rely on beyond the parameter names.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so layout, script, database, and parameter are each documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning, such as how the script parameter is passed or how the layout context affects execution.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Execute) and resource (FileMaker script), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not differentiate from any sibling or clarify scope, but the action itself is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 the sibling data tools (query_records, create_record, update_record, etc.), nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid layout context or which scripts are available. Usage is inferred purely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about auth requirements, timeouts, failure semantics, or what a 'successful' test means. It restates the name without adding 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the action. Brevity here is appropriate to a one-parameter tool, though it is under-specified rather than maximally informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (success/failure signal, error detail). It leaves the agent unable to anticipate results or failure modes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only one parameter, fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) and constrained by an enum. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: testing a connection to a FileMaker database. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from siblings like fm_query_records or fm_run_script, though it never explicitly names a sibling or scoping condition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight/health-check tool rather than something to run as part of normal data flow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the update is partial or full-replace, what happens to fields omitted from fieldData, whether it requires write permission, or whether it is reversible. For an unannotated mutation tool with a nested object parameter, this is a substantial gap. The single word 'Update' only implies mutation, which the name already conveyed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action and resource come first. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification given the tool's four required parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with a nested object (fieldData), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. Although the schema covers parameter names and types, nothing explains update semantics, merge behavior, permissions, or failure modes, which an agent invoking a write operation needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (database, layout, recordId, fieldData) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about fieldData's partial-update semantics or the significance of recordId, so it does not exceed the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description pairs a specific verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('existing record'), so an agent can distinguish it from fm_create_record and fm_delete_record by the verb alone. It stops short of differentiating from siblings by scope or behavior, and gives no hint of what 'existing' requires beyond the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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 fm_create_record, fm_query_records, or fm_run_script. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context about when an update is the right call. The agent must infer everything from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.