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. 'Add issues to a cycle' implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens if issues are already in the cycle, error conditions, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is 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.

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

The description is extremely concise at just four words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't contain any unnecessary elaboration. While it's arguably too brief for adequate tool documentation, it scores perfectly on the conciseness dimension as defined.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that perform related operations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after issues are added, whether there are constraints on which issues can be added, or how this interacts with other cycle operations. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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

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

The description 'Add issues to a cycle' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. While it identifies the verb ('add') and resource ('issues to a cycle'), it lacks specificity about what this operation entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove-issue-from-cycle' or 'list-cycle-issues'. It's minimally informative but doesn't provide meaningful context beyond the obvious.

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

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 'remove-issue-from-cycle', 'list-cycle-issues', and 'create-cycle', there's no indication of when this specific add operation is appropriate versus other cycle-related operations. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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

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. 'Add issues to a module' implies a write/mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether this is idempotent, what happens if issues are already in the module, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just four words: 'Add issues to a module'. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, with zero wasted words. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness as every word contributes directly to the purpose statement.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after adding issues, what the return value looks like, error conditions, or permissions required. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but for a tool that modifies data, the description should provide more behavioral context than it does.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters (project_id, module_id, issues) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description 'Add issues to a module' clearly states the action (add) and target (issues to a module), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add-issues-to-cycle' or 'remove-issue-from-module', which perform similar operations on different resources. The description is specific enough to understand the basic function but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple related tools (add-issues-to-cycle, remove-issue-from-module, create-module, list-module-issues) that handle modules and issues, but the description offers no context about when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives. No 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.

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 indicates a mutation ('convert') but does not specify permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, side effects (e.g., impact on linked issues), or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding 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.

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

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, and response format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but does not compensate for these gaps.

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 both parameters (project_id and issue_id) adequately. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, 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.

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

The description clearly states the specific action ('convert'), the resource ('sub-issue'), and the outcome ('back to a regular issue (remove parent relationship)'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'convert-to-sub-issue' by specifying the reverse operation, making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'convert a sub-issue back to a regular issue,' suggesting it should be used when removing a parent relationship. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or prerequisites like issue status), leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('convert') but doesn't describe what happens during conversion, such as whether it's reversible, if it affects issue properties, or what permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are crucial for an agent 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.

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project_id, issue_id, parent_issue_id) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('existing issue'), specifying the transformation to a 'sub-issue of another issue'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create-sub-issue' by focusing on conversion rather than creation, though it doesn't explicitly mention all relevant siblings like 'convert-to-issue'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the issues must exist or be in a specific state, or compare it to siblings like 'create-sub-issue' or 'convert-to-issue', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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 this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether cycles have unique constraints, what happens on success/failure, or any 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and gets directly to the point.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'cycle' is in this context, what happens after creation, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like 'update-cycle' and 'delete-cycle'. The agent lacks crucial context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but doesn't need to since the schema is comprehensive. 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('a new cycle in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'update-cycle' or 'list-cycles', but the verb 'Create' distinguishes it from read/update/delete operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-cycle' or 'list-cycles'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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 'Create a new intake/inbox issue', which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Create a new intake/inbox issue'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more specific to improve clarity without sacrificing 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?

Given the complexity of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'intake/inbox issue' is, how it differs from other issues, what the tool returns, or any behavioral context. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 4 parameters (e.g., project_id, name, description_html, priority with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description 'Create a new intake/inbox issue' clearly states the action (create) and resource (intake/inbox issue), but it's vague about what distinguishes an 'intake/inbox issue' from a regular issue. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-issue' or 'create-sub-issue', leaving ambiguity about the specific type of issue being created.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-issue' or 'create-sub-issue'. The description implies it's for creating a specific type of issue (intake/inbox), but without context on what that means or when it's appropriate, the agent lacks clear usage instructions.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, permission levels needed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the API 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, error handling, or response format. Given the complexity of the operation and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more context about how the tool behaves and what to expect.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the 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.

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

The description clearly states the verb ('create') and resource ('new issue in a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create-intake-issue' or 'create-sub-issue', which would require more specific differentiation.

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 like 'create-intake-issue' or 'create-sub-issue'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or any context about when this tool is appropriate versus other creation 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.

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 creates a comment, implying a write operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or whether the comment is editable. 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.

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 highly concise and well-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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects, error handling, or response format, which are critical for proper tool invocation in this context.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new comment') and target resource ('on an issue'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update-issue-comment' or other comment-related tools, missing explicit differentiation.

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 like 'update-issue-comment' or 'get-issue-comment', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing issue. It lacks context for tool selection among siblings.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects (e.g., if the link is publicly visible), error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps 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.

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.

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 behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication needs, what happens on success/failure) and doesn't compensate for the absence 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.

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

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema adequately documents the parameters, but the description doesn't enhance understanding with examples or contextual details.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new external link for an issue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-issue-link' or 'get-issue-link', which would require more specificity about creating versus modifying or retrieving links.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'create-issue-comment' or 'create-issue-property', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

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. While 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether the property becomes immediately available, potential rate limits, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't provide context about the creation process, success/failure conditions, or how it fits within the broader workflow. The lack of annotations means more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (like explaining relationships between parameters or providing examples). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new custom property for an issue type'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create-issue-property-option' or explain how it differs from 'update-issue-property' and 'delete-issue-property', which would be needed for 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.

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project and issue type), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create-issue-property-option' or 'update-issue-property'.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate option names, or what the response looks like. For a creation 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero fluff.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. The purpose is clear and the schema provides parameter details, but the lack of behavioral context (permissions, side effects, response format) and usage guidance relative to sibling tools leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 6 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions, 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new option') and the target resource ('for a dropdown/select issue property'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-issue-property' or 'update-issue-property-option', 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.

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-issue-property' (which creates the property itself) or 'update-issue-property-option' (which modifies existing options). There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or contextual constraints, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

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 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires admin permissions, if there are limits on custom issue types per project, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool and follows good front-loading principles by stating the core action immediately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns the new issue type ID), doesn't mention potential error conditions or constraints, and provides no context about how this fits into the broader issue management workflow. The combination of mutation nature plus lack of structured metadata requires more descriptive context.

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 description mentions creating 'in a project' which aligns with the project_id parameter, and 'custom issue type' which relates to the name parameter. However, with 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the structured schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation but not enhancing parameter understanding significantly.

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 clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new custom issue type in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar creation tools like 'create-issue' or 'create-state', which would require mentioning it's specifically for issue type metadata rather than actual issues or other project elements.

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. With sibling tools like 'create-issue' (for actual issues) and 'update-issue-type' (for modifying existing issue types), there's no indication of when this creation tool is appropriate versus those other operations. No prerequisites, constraints, or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, whether it's idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, error conditions, or the format of the response. For a mutation 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.

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward create operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns a worklog ID, affects issue time tracking), doesn't mention error cases or permissions, and provides no context about the worklog system. Given the complexity of creating a time entry and the lack of structured coverage, the description should do more.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between project_id and issue_id, or provide examples beyond the schema's duration example). 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 clearly states the action ('Create a new time log entry') and the target resource ('for an issue'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-issue' or 'update-issue-worklog' by focusing on time logging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list-issue-worklogs' or 'delete-issue-worklog' in the description text itself.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing worklogs), or refer to sibling tools like 'update-issue-worklog' or 'list-issue-worklogs' for related operations.

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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the return value looks like. For a creation 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.

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation (e.g., returns the new label object), error conditions, or behavioral nuances. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool effectively beyond the basic action.

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 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (like format examples for 'color' beyond '#ff0000' or constraints on 'name'). The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone.

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 clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('new label in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'update-label' or 'delete-label' by specifying creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create-issue' or 'create-cycle' beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing project), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update-label' or 'get-label'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'create' implies a write operation, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether creation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

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

For a creation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'module' or 'sprint' represents in this context, doesn't mention typical workflows, and provides no information about the return value or creation outcomes.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed documentation for all 8 parameters including formats, enums, and optionality. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('new module (sprint) in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-cycle' or 'update-module', 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.

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-cycle' or 'update-module', nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

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 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the response contains. For a creation 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and gets straight to the point with zero waste.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'state' represents in this system, what happens after creation, or provide any context about the broader workflow. With many sibling tools available, more contextual information would help the agent understand when and why to use this specific tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, providing complete parameter documentation in the structured schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. With comprehensive schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a new state') and resource ('in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create-cycle' or 'create-module' that also create project entities, missing explicit differentiation.

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. With many sibling tools available (like 'create-cycle', 'create-module', 'create-issue'), there's no indication of what a 'state' represents in this context or when it's appropriate to create one versus other project entities.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't mention permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation 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.

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

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. Given the complexity of creating hierarchical issues, more context is needed.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new sub-issue') and the resource ('under a parent issue'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-issue' or 'convert-to-sub-issue', which would be needed for 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.

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create-issue' or 'convert-to-sub-issue'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for creating sub-issues versus standalone issues.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but fails to specify critical details such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related issues, or provides confirmation. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like irreversibility, permissions, or side effects, and doesn't explain what happens upon success or failure, leaving the agent with incomplete context for reliable use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('project_id' and 'cycle_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how to obtain these IDs or their format. 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a cycle from a project'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like 'delete-intake-issue' or 'delete-module' by specifying what makes a cycle unique or the consequences of deletion.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing to list cycles first or warn against using it if issues are attached, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'list-cycles' for selection or 'update-cycle' for modification instead.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete an intake issue' implies a destructive, irreversible operation, but the description doesn't state whether this is permanent, requires specific permissions, what happens to related data, or if there are confirmation steps. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 maximally concise - a single four-word phrase that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical questions: Is deletion permanent? What permissions are required? What happens to associated data? What does success/failure look like? The description fails to provide the necessary context for safe and informed tool usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'issue_id') clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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

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

The description 'Delete an intake issue' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (intake issue), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like 'delete-cycle', 'delete-issue-comment', or 'delete-state' - it merely restates the tool name without clarifying what makes an 'intake issue' different from other issue types.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools for managing issues (create-intake-issue, update-intake-issue, get-intake-issue, convert-to-issue) but no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus conversion or other operations. No prerequisites, warnings, 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.

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 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it triggers notifications, or what happens to the response (success/failure indicators). For a mutation 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.

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 deletion operation 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.

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 inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success confirmation, error conditions), doesn't mention permissions or side effects, and provides no context about the deletion's impact on the issue or related data. The tool needs more behavioral context given its complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (project_id, issue_id, comment_id relationships). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('a comment from an issue'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar deletion tools like 'delete-issue-worklog' or 'delete-intake-issue', which reduces its score from a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing comment_id from get-issue-comment), no indication of when deletion is appropriate versus updating, and no reference to sibling tools like 'update-issue-comment' or 'get-issue-comment' that might be relevant alternatives.

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 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but it does not clarify permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent, error conditions (e.g., if the link doesn't exist), or side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, exemplifying ideal 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?

Given the tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Delete'), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical behavioral aspects like confirmation prompts, error handling, or return values. For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters (project_id, issue_id, link_id). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an external link from an issue'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-issue-link' vs 'update-issue-link' or 'create-issue-link', which would require mentioning it's for removal only. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing link), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update-issue-link' or 'create-issue-link'. Without such context, an agent might struggle to choose appropriately among related tools.

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 full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Delete an issue property' directly conveys the core action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive mutation with 3 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects (e.g., irreversibility, permissions), usage context, or what happens post-deletion. For a delete operation, this minimal description leaves critical gaps for safe and correct tool invocation.

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%, with all three parameters (project_id, type_id, property_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, relationships between IDs). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description 'Delete an issue property' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('issue property'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-issue-property-option' or 'delete-issue-type', which could cause confusion about what specific resource is being deleted. It's adequate but lacks sibling differentiation.

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

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 property), exclusions, or related tools like 'get-issue-property' or 'list-issue-properties' for verification. Without any usage context, the agent must infer everything from the tool name and schema alone.

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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, requires special permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns confirmation data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like success/failure responses, error conditions, permissions required, or system behavior post-deletion. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool safely and effectively in complex scenarios.

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%, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'type_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., format examples, relationship between parameters). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an issue type from a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete-cycle' or 'delete-label' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'delete-state' or other deletion tools beyond the resource name.

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

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., whether the issue type must be unused), consequences (e.g., what happens to existing issues of that type), or alternatives (e.g., updating instead of deleting). Without annotations, this leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage contexts.

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 the tool deletes a worklog, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to mention critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data, or has 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.

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

The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and avoids redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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

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

Given the tool's destructive nature (deletion), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not address behavioral risks, permission requirements, or what happens post-deletion (e.g., confirmation, error handling). For a mutation tool with no structured safety hints, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters (project_id, issue_id, worklog_id) with their purposes. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or relationships between parameters, so it meets the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a worklog entry from an issue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete-issue-comment' or 'delete-issue-link', which have similar deletion patterns but target different resources.

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

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 'update-issue-worklog' for modification or other deletion tools for different resources. It lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate, offering only basic functional information.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is deletion but lacks critical details: whether this is irreversible, requires specific permissions, affects associated data (e.g., issues using the label), or returns confirmation. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the key action and resource. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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.

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

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address safety concerns, return values, or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed for a mutation tool in a context with many sibling operations.

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%, with both parameters ('project_id', 'label_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these IDs are needed, 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a label from a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create-label' and 'update-label' by specifying deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete-cycle', 'delete-module').

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing label), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'delete-issue-property' or 'delete-state', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated issues, or provides confirmation. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation 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.

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 unnecessary words. 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.

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

Given the complexity of a destructive deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral risks, success/failure responses, or dependencies, which are crucial for safe and effective use by an AI agent in this context.

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%, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'module_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples or relationships), 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('a module from a project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like 'delete-cycle' or 'delete-state', which follow a similar pattern, so it doesn't fully differentiate from siblings.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., module must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if module has issues), or sibling tools (e.g., 'delete-cycle' for cycles instead of modules), leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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. While 'delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, or how it affects related entities (e.g., issues in that state). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and target. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, and 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?

Given that this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as success/error responses, side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or safety warnings. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and output information needed for safe invocation.

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%, with both parameters ('project_id' and 'state_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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 'Delete a state from a project' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (state from a project), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'delete-cycle' or 'delete-module' by specifying 'state' as the resource. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'update-state' in terms of when deletion vs. modification is appropriate.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the state must be empty of issues), consequences (e.g., what happens to associated data), or when to choose deletion over updating a state. With siblings like 'update-state' and 'create-state', the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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

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 'Get detailed information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, whether authentication is required, potential error conditions, or response format. This leaves significant 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.

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

The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get detailed information').

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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks important context. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally specify what 'detailed information' includes or mention authentication requirements. The completeness is borderline given the tool's straightforward nature.

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 fully documents both parameters (project_id and cycle_id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or relationships between parameters. 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific cycle'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-cycles' or 'list-cycle-issues', which would require mentioning this retrieves a single cycle by ID rather than listing multiple cycles.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-cycles' for listing multiple cycles or 'list-cycle-issues' for getting cycle-related issues, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing both project_id and cycle_id to retrieve a specific cycle.

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 full burden. It states 'Get detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what 'detailed' includes (e.g., fields returned), error conditions, or rate limits. 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information'). There's no wasted verbiage, 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.

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 'detailed information' includes in the return values, nor does it cover behavioral aspects like safety or errors. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, this lacks sufficient context.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific' issue, which aligns with the required IDs. 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.

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific intake issue'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issue' or 'list-intake-issues', which would require more specificity about what makes an 'intake issue' distinct.

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 like 'get-issue' or 'list-intake-issues'. It mentions retrieving a 'specific' issue but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing both project and issue IDs, or when this is preferred over other retrieval methods.

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 full burden. It states 'Get detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, 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.

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 purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though it lacks depth due to its brevity.

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

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 'detailed information' entails, potential return values, or error handling. For a read operation with rich sibling tools, 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.

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'project_id' and 'issue_id' in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific issue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-intake-issue' or 'get-issue-activity', which also retrieve issue-related information, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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

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 'list-issues' for multiple issues or 'get-intake-issue' for specific types, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

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 'gets detailed information', lacking behavioral details like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, returns structured data, or has rate limits. It doesn't disclose what 'detailed information' entails or any operational constraints.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage, making it 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.

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 three required parameters. It fails to explain what 'detailed information' includes, return formats, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's behavior fully.

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

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. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of a specific activity, which aligns with the parameters but doesn't provide extra context like format examples or relationships between IDs.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific issue activity'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-activities' by specifying retrieval of a single activity, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-issue-activities' or 'get-issue'. The description implies it's for retrieving a specific activity, but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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 gets a URL but doesn't describe what happens next (e.g., the URL is time-limited, requires a separate HTTP PUT, or what permissions are needed). For a tool that enables file uploads, this lack of operational 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the key information.

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 that enables file uploads with 5 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the workflow (e.g., this returns a URL that must be used separately), behavioral constraints (e.g., URL expiration), or what the output looks like. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without additional context.

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

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain why all parameters are required or how they interact). The baseline of 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.

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('pre-signed URL for uploading file attachments to an issue'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-issue-attachments' or explain how this tool fits into a multi-step upload workflow, 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.

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 issue), workflow context (e.g., this is step 1 of a 2-step upload process), or when other tools might be more appropriate (e.g., 'list-issue-attachments' for viewing existing attachments).

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 full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, includes rate limits, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned, error handling). 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's 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.

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 adequate for a basic read operation. It covers the purpose but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error cases, which could hinder agent effectiveness in complex scenarios. It meets minimum viability with clear gaps.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval of a 'specific comment,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance parameter understanding. 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.

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific comment'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-issue-comments' or 'get-issue-activity', which reduces specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list-issue-comments' for multiple comments or 'get-issue-activity' for broader issue history. The description implies usage for retrieving a single comment but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how the tool behaves, or what the return values are. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all three parameters clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific issue link'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-links', which would require more specificity about what makes an 'issue link' distinct.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get-issue-link' over 'list-issue-links' or 'get-issue', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get details'), making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is ideal for a simple retrieval tool, though it could benefit from more 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned (e.g., property values, metadata), error cases, or dependencies on other tools. For a retrieval tool with three required parameters, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID of the project'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between project_id, type_id, and property_id. With 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.

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

The description 'Get details of a specific issue property' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('issue property'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-properties', which is a missed opportunity for clarity.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get-issue' (for broader issue details) or 'list-issue-properties' (for listing properties), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

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 'gets detailed information' without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails. It lacks context on permissions, response format, or potential side effects.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, how errors are handled, or other contextual details needed for effective use, leaving significant gaps despite the simple input 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 both parameters (project_id and type_id) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying retrieval requires these IDs, matching the baseline for high schema coverage without extra param details.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific issue type', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-types', which would require more specific language about what makes this retrieval unique.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get-issue' or 'list-issue-types'. The description implies retrieval of a specific issue type but doesn't clarify prerequisites, context, 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.

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 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' specifically includes. For a 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.

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 purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

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

Given that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns structured data. 'Detailed information' is vague, and there's no indication of what fields are returned, what format the response takes, or any error handling. For a retrieval tool with rich sibling tools, this leaves significant gaps.

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 fully documents both parameters (project_id and label_id). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or contextual usage of these IDs. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific label'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-labels' or 'create-label', which would be needed for 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.

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 when to use 'get-label' versus 'list-labels' or other sibling tools, nor any context about prerequisites or appropriate situations for its use.

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 full burden. It states this is a read operation ('get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. For a 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero wasted content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple retrieval with 2 required parameters) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks context about what 'detailed information' returns or behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for the agent.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb ('get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific module'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get-project' or 'get-cycle', which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a project context or differentiate from other 'get' tools for related resources, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter names alone.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed information' entails in the response. 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.

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. There is no wasted verbiage or structural 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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes in the response, potential error conditions, or any behavioral constraints. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), it could be minimally adequate, but the lack of output details and behavioral context leaves significant gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'project_id' fully documented in the schema as 'ID of the project to retrieve'. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing instructions. Given the 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.

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

The description clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and the resource ('about a specific project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-projects' by specifying retrieval of a single project rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, 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.

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list-projects' for browsing or 'get-project-total-worklogs' for specific metrics, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a project ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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 full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it returns cached or real-time data, error conditions, or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 simple read operation with one well-documented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what 'total time logged' means (e.g., time units, aggregation method) and what the return value looks like. The current description leaves the agent guessing about output format.

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%, with the single parameter 'project_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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.

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 ('total time logged across all issues in a project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-issue-worklogs' by focusing on aggregated totals rather than individual worklog listings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other project-related tools like 'get-project'.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or compare it to similar tools like 'list-issue-worklogs' or 'get-project'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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 the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., format, fields). 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.

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 with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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

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

Given the complexity of retrieving state details in a project management context, the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to clarify safety or behavior, and there's no output schema to describe the return values. The description alone doesn't adequately prepare an agent for effective use, especially compared to more detailed sibling tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('project_id' and 'state_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

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 ('detailed information about a specific state'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other 'get' siblings like 'get-cycle' or 'get-issue', which follow a similar pattern, so it doesn't fully differentiate from siblings.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with other tools like 'list-states' or 'get-project', 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.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'List all issues' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., archived issues included?). The description is minimal and leaves key operational 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.